On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 10:39:31 +0100 Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 10:07:22 -0500 > Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 12/21/22 06:50, Mariusz Tkaczyk wrote: > > > Move duplicated code for both config.c and mdadm.c to new functions. > > > Add error enum in mdadm.h. Use MD_NAME_MAX instead hardcoded value > > > in mddev_ident. Use secure functions. > > > > > > In next patch POSIX validation is added. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Mariusz, > > > > I appreciate the work to consolidate duplicate code. However, I am not a > > fan of new typedefs, in addition you return status_t codes in functions > > changed to return error_t, which is inconsistent. > > Hi Jes, > Indeed, initially I named it as error_t and I forgot to update that part. > I'm surprised that compiler didn't catch it. Thanks! > > About typedef, I did it same for IMSM already: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git/tree/super-intel.c#n376 > I can change that but I wanted to define a common solution propagated later to > other mdadm parts. > > > > > I would prefer if we move towards standard POSIX error codes instead of > > trying to invent new ones. > > > > The POSIX errors are defined for communication with kernel space and > unfortunately they are not detailed enough. For example "undefined" or > just "general_error" statuses are not available. > https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/errno.3.html > It the approach I proposed we are free to create exact errors we need. > Later we can create a map of error values to string and create dedicated > error print functions. > Hi Jes, Should I drop this enum in v2? Thanks, Mariusz
