On 7/10/23 10:58?AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Usually, successful memory allocation returns true and failure returns false, >> which is more in line with the intuitive perception of most people. So it >> is necessary to redefine the meaning of io_alloc_async_data's return value. >> >> This could enhance the readability of the code and reduce the possibility >> of confusion. > > just want to say, this is the kind of patch that causes bugs in > downstream kernels. It is not fixing anything, and when we backport a > future bugfix around it, it is easy to miss it and slightly break the > semantics. Exactly! This is also why I'm not a fan of patches like this, and was not intending to apply it. > That's my downstream problem, of course. But at least it would be good Strictly speaking it is, but I think we have a responsibility to not have core bits be different upstream "just because". IOW, making it harder to introduce problems when backporting. And fwiw, I'm not sure I agree on the idiomatic part of it. Lots of functions return 0 for success and non-zero for an error. It's a bit odd as this one is a bool, but I'm pretty sure it used to return an actual error and this is why it looks the way it currently does. -- Jens Axboe
