On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:23:05 -0600 Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:04:15 -0600 > > Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> >> > >> >> 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> > >> > > >> > >> I meant all the get/set_cifs_acl function now return an error code > >> i.e. 0 for success and non-zero for an error. > > > > Ok, so what's the question? > > > > -- > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > no question, just stating the reason for changing signatures of > get_cifs_acl* calls instead of them returning a ptr to the structure. I understood why you did it. I'm just pointing out that it's more efficient to use the ERR_PTR() macro to pass back errors rather that turning this thing into an int return with another double-pointer argument. It's also easier to read. -- 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
