On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:10:11AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On 6/12/25 3:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:55:02PM +0300, Sergey Bashirov wrote: > >> if (nr_iomaps < 0) > >> - return nfserrno(nr_iomaps); > >> + return cpu_to_be32(-nr_iomaps); > > > > This still feels like an odd calling convention. Maybe we should just > > change the calling convention to return the __be32 encoded nfs errno > > and have a separate output argument for the number of iomaps? > > > > Chuck, any preference? > > > > I thought of using an output argument. This calling convention is not > uncommon in NFS code, and I recall that Linus might prefer avoiding > output arguments? > > If I were writing fresh code, I think I would use an output argument > instead of folding results of two different types into a function's > return value. In general, I am ok with either of these two approaches. But I agree with Christoph that the solution with a separate output argument seems more natural to me. Should I submit the v3 patch with a separate output argument? -- Sergey Bashirov
