Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:35:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
        rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, richard.weiyang@gmail.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/sparse: Clean up the obsolete code comment
Message-ID: <20190321103521.GO8696@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20190320073540.12866-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20190320111959.GV19508@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190320122011.stuoqugpjdt3d7cd@d104.suse.de>
 <20190320122243.GX19508@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190320123658.GF13626@rapoport-lnx>
 <20190320125843.GY19508@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190321064029.GW18740@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <20190321092138.GY18740@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <3FFF0A5F-AD27-4F31-8ECF-3B72135CF560@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FFF0A5F-AD27-4F31-8ECF-3B72135CF560@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 21-03-19 04:24:35, William Kucharski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:21 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> 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