On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 01:09:03AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2023 / 18:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 06:26:56PM +0900, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > > +static int p2sb_valid_resource(struct resource *res)
> > > +{
> > > + return res->flags ? 0 : -ENOENT;
> > > +}
> >
> > This got worse because it's *named* like a boolean, but the return
> > value can't be used like a boolean, which makes callers really hard to
> > read, e.g., this:
> >
> > if (p2sb_valid_resource(res))
> > /* do something */
> >
> > does exactly the opposite of what the reader expects.
> >
> > I see that you want to use this -ENOENT return value in the callers:
> ...
> I have to admit that the function name meaning is opposite... When I
> followed Andy's idea to make the function to return -ENOENT, I
> should have renamed the function to not cause the confusion.
Oh, sorry, I hadn't seen that idea. But your v4 looks good to me (at
least this part; I didn't look carefully at the whole patch :) ).
Bjorn
