Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:39:10 -0800
From:   Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org>
To:     Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>
Cc:     Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "kernel-team@fb.com" <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/35] mmap locking API: name the return values
Message-ID: <20220207173910.GA12302@lespinasse.org>
References: <20220128131006.67712-1-michel@lespinasse.org>
 <20220128131006.67712-4-michel@lespinasse.org>
 <20220131161737.cclyx2ntil3opted@revolver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220131161737.cclyx2ntil3opted@revolver>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:17:43PM +0000, Liam Howlett wrote:
> * Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org> [220128 08:10]:
> > In the mmap locking API, the *_killable() functions return an error
> > (or 0 on success), and the *_trylock() functions return a boolean
> > (true on success).
> > 
> > Rename the return values "int error" and "bool ok", respectively,
> > rather than using "ret" for both cases which I find less readable.
> 
> Would it be better to add function documentation in regards to return
> types?  I think changing the variables does help, but putting a block
> with Return: <what's above> would work best.

That would work, I guess. I'm not sure what it says about our general
coding style, that the comment would kinda stick out like a sore thumb
compared to the rest of the file, or of similar include files
(say, other lock definitions). I don't care very strongly either way.

--
Michel "walken" Lespinasse