On Mon, 24 Jul 2023, Wieczor-Retman, Maciej wrote:
On 14.07.2023 13:03, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
On 7/13/2023 6:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
-int remount_resctrlfs(bool mum_resctrlfs) +int mount_resctrlfs(void) {
- char mountpoint[256]; int ret;
- ret = find_resctrl_mount(mountpoint);
- if (ret)
strcpy(mountpoint, RESCTRL_PATH);- if (!ret && mum_resctrlfs && umount(mountpoint))
ksft_print_msg("Fail: unmounting \"%s\"\n", mountpoint);- if (!ret && !mum_resctrlfs)
return 0;
- ret = find_resctrl_mount(NULL);
- if (!ret)
return -1;This treats "ret == 0" as a failure. What about -ENXIO? It seems to me that only "ret == -ENOENT" is "success".
Yes, it's a good catch.
I had an idea about a small redesign of find_resctrl_mount return values so it is easier to see what the function tries to accomplish.
When there is an error (-ENXIO for example) it could return the negative error value. When no mount is found it could return a zero (instead of the -ENOENT error code). Finally when a mount point was found it could return a positive value (for example return 1). This way errors could be separate from regular return values and in my opinion the function logic would be more transparent.
What do you think about it?
Yes, it's a great idea. It would be more logical and thus easier to comprehend.
Since this already wast applied, it has to be done in another change.