Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750737AbWHTLMw (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:12:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750740AbWHTLMw (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:12:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40350 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750737AbWHTLMv (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:12:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc. From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Stern Cc: Kernel development list , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , Kai Petzke , "Theodore Ts'o" , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:06:21 +0200 Message-Id: <1156071981.19017.60.camel@earth> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 817 Lines: 19 On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 17:39 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. yeah, lets just flip the logic over, but combined with a rename so that we dont surprise not-yet-in-tree code [and documentation/books]. queue_work() -> add_work() or something like that. Ingo - 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/