Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:05:41 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 4e207e3849d4 - main - exterr: make SET_ERRORX() macros an expression evaluating to the errno Message-ID: <aFCHJYnDUeHcykGV@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <aFCGJjKoPgFfqprl@cell.glebi.us> References: <202506131940.55DJeTa1046740@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <0003a97e-60ed-4868-8844-0a0346bc97ee@FreeBSD.org> <aE1yO1glTul0Zu8r@nuc> <aFCGJjKoPgFfqprl@cell.glebi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 02:01:26PM -0700, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 08:59:39AM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote: > M> If your suggestion is implemented, then it would be sensible to use a > M> different name to avoid collisions, maybe SET_EXTERROR() or just > M> EXTERROR(). > > I'd vote for EXTERROR(). But now with the function existing, why would > we recommend to use the macro instead of the function at all? Because there is an option to not bloat the kernel with strings. Also there is a desire to provide more info, like amount of the arguments supplied, automatically. It is already EXTERROR(). See vm/vm_mmap.c for exemplary usage. > IMHO, the > function shall be the right use and that will make any macro collisions > with ZFS or whatever void.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aFCHJYnDUeHcykGV>