On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 11:53 -0400, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > The code had its own non-standard FFS_FOO return codes. Go through > and convert them all the kernel standard -EFOO codes. > > Valdis Kletnieks (15): > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FULL > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_NOTFOUND > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_DIRBUSY > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_PERMISSIONERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_NAMETOOLONG > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FILEEXIST > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_INVALIDPATH > staging: exfat: Clean up return code - FFS_MEMORYERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FORMATERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_MEDIAERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_EOF > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_INVALIDFID > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_ERROR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - remove unused codes > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_SUCCESS All well and good, but does converting the error code from positive to negative have any impact on any of the code paths that use these return values? if (error > 0) vs if (error < 0) ? If you've gone through all the return tests, then it would be nice to say so.
