On Thu 21-03-19 04:24:35, William Kucharski wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:21 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It appears as is so often the case that the usage has far outpaced the > documentation and -EEXIST may be the proper code to return. > > The correct answer here may be to modify the documentation to note the > additional semantic, though if the usage is solely within the kernel it > may be sufficient to explain its use in the header comment for the > routine (in this case sparse_add_one_section()). Is this really worth? It is a well known problem that errno codes are far from sufficient to describe error codes we need. Yet we are stuck with them more or less. I really do not see any point changing this particular path, nor spend a lot of time whether one inappropriate code is any better than another one. The code works as intended AFAICS. I would stick with all good rule of thumb. It works, do not touch it too much. I am sorry to be snarky but hasn't this generated way much more email traffic than it really deserves? A simply and trivial clean up in the beginning that was it, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
