Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Another thing that keeps bugging me about prepend_path() is the
> set of return values. I mean, 0/1/2/3/-ENAMETOOLONG, and all
> except 0 are unlikely? Might as well make that 0/1/2/3/-1, if
> not an outright 0/1/2/3/4. And prepend() could return bool, while
> we are at it (true - success, false - overflow)...
I remember seeing that the different callers of prepend_path treated
those different cases differently.
But now that I look again the return value 3 (escaped) gets lumped
together with 2(detached).
On second look it appears that the two patterns that we actually have
are basically:
char *__d_path(const struct path *path,
const struct path *root,
char *buf, int buflen)
{
error = prepend_path(path, root, &res, &buflen);
if (error < 0)
return ERR_PTR(error);
if (error > 0)
return NULL;
return res;
}
char *d_absolute_path(const struct path *path,
char *buf, int buflen)
{
error = prepend_path(path, &root, &res, &buflen);
if (error > 1)
error = -EINVAL;
if (error < 0)
return ERR_PTR(error);
return res;
}
With d_absolute_path deciding that return value 1 absolute is not an
error.
That does look like there is plenty of room to refactor and make things
clearer.
Eric
