On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:24:00 -0600 Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:47:18 -0600 > > shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> From: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> > >> Modify get/set_cifs_acl* calls to reutrn error code and percolate the > >> error code up to the caller. > >> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> fs/cifs/cifsacl.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > >> 1 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsacl.c b/fs/cifs/cifsacl.c > >> index c9b4792..8c260b9 100644 > >> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsacl.c > >> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsacl.c > >> @@ -552,38 +552,40 @@ static int build_sec_desc(struct cifs_ntsd *pntsd, struct cifs_ntsd *pnntsd, > >> return rc; > >> } > >> > >> -static struct cifs_ntsd *get_cifs_acl_by_fid(struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb, > >> - __u16 fid, u32 *pacllen) > >> +static int > >> +get_cifs_acl_by_fid(struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb, > >> + __u16 fid, u32 *pacllen, struct cifs_ntsd **pntsd) > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Dealing with pointers to pointers like this is cumbersome and > > inefficient. Why not just have it return a struct pointer like before > > or a ERR_PTR converted error? > > I think we now have a consistent interface not only within > various get/set_cifs_acl* functions but like most of the rest of of > the functions > i.e. they return error code and not a ptr to a structure when successful > or an err ptr for failure? > I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
