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;
Message-ID: <7e8c910f-4938-01c2-ac38-7ce89236cec1@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:02:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Redefined the meaning of io_alloc_async_data's
 return value
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>,
        Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@vivo.com>
Cc:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, opensource.kernel@vivo.com
References: <20230710090957.10463-1-luhongfei@vivo.com>
 <87o7kjr9d9.fsf@suse.de>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87o7kjr9d9.fsf@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/10/23 10:58?AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@vivo.com> writes:
> 
>> Usually, successful memory allocation returns true and failure returns false,
>> which is more in line with the intuitive perception of most people. So it
>> is necessary to redefine the meaning of io_alloc_async_data's return value.
>>
>> This could enhance the readability of the code and reduce the possibility
>> of confusion.
> 
> just want to say, this is the kind of patch that causes bugs in
> downstream kernels.  It is not fixing anything, and when we backport a
> future bugfix around it, it is easy to miss it and slightly break the
> semantics.

Exactly! This is also why I'm not a fan of patches like this, and was
not intending to apply it.

> That's my downstream problem, of course. But at least it would be good

Strictly speaking it is, but I think we have a responsibility to not
have core bits be different upstream "just because". IOW, making it
harder to introduce problems when backporting.

And fwiw, I'm not sure I agree on the idiomatic part of it. Lots of
functions return 0 for success and non-zero for an error. It's a bit odd
as this one is a bool, but I'm pretty sure it used to return an actual
error and this is why it looks the way it currently does.

-- 
Jens Axboe