Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 07:59:20PM +0800, shejialuo wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 10:05:19AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: >> > > The fsck.c:report() function, which is the main function to report >> > > fsck's findings before fsck_report_ref() was introduced, did not >> > > have such a problem, as it allowed "const char *fmt, ..." at the >> > > end. Is it too late to fix the fsck_report_ref()? >> > >> > I don't think so, I think we should be able to refactor the code rather >> > easily to do so. >> > >> >> It's not hard to refactor the code. But this is not the problem. I am a >> little confused here. Because we already allowed "fsck_report_ref" >> having "const char *fmt, ..." at the end. > > Ah, I didn't double check, but was operating on what I understood from > this thread. In that case I think that the current interface is okay. I didn't, either. So there is an obvious way out for "why aren't we telling the errno to users" issue? That's good.
