Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751487AbWHRVjQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:39:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751488AbWHRVjQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:39:16 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:25359 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751487AbWHRVjP (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:39:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Kernel development list cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , Kai Petzke , "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 825 Lines: 21 I'd like to lodge a bitter complaint about the return codes used by queue_work() and related functions: Why do the damn things return 0 for error and 1 for success??? Why don't they use negative error codes for failure, like everything else in the kernel?!! I've tripped over this at least twice, and on each occasion spent a considerable length of time trying to track down the problem. If nobody objects, I'll write a patch to change the convention for the return values. It doesn't matter how many places those routines are called from; it'll be worth it. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/