On 01/12/2013 06:52 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:36:46PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> On 01/09/2013 10:04 PM, Abhijit Pawar wrote:
>>> This patch replaces usages of obsolete simple_strtoul with kstrtoint in xfs_args and suffix_strtoul.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pawar <abhi.c.pawar@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> + if (kstrtoint(value, 10, &dswidth))
>>> + return EINVAL;
>>> } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_32BITINODE)) {
>>> mp->m_flags |= XFS_MOUNT_SMALL_INUMS;
>>> } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_64BITINODE)) {
>>>
>> checkpatch.pl show warning if we return EINVAL as below:
>> WARNING: return of an errno should typically be -ve (return -EINVAL)
>>
>> Can we just ignore such code style issue?
>
> Returning a positive error is not a code style issue. It's a
> correctness issue. the core of the XFS code returns positive error
> numbers as that's the way it was done on Irix (where the XFs code
> comes from). The rest of the Linux code tends to use negative values
> for error returns, and we've never converted the XFS code base to
> negative errors.
>
> You should always feel free to ignore checkpatch warnings that make
> no sense. I haven't used checkpatch now for several years - I
> stopped using it when it got too noisy warning about uselesss,
> trivial things in the XFS code base....
Thanks for the clarification, that would save me time to handle
checkpatch warnings against XFS in the future. :)
Cheers,
-Jeff
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
