On 6/12/25 11:57 AM, Sergey Bashirov wrote: > 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? Yes, thank you! -- Chuck Lever
