Re: [PATCH v2] nfsd: Use correct error code when decoding extents

[Chuck Lever]

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