On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:05 +0200 Oskar Andero <oskar.and...@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> > If we want the capability to return more than a binary yes/no message > > to callers then yes, we could/should enumerate the shrinker return > > values. But as that is a different concept from errnos, it should be > > done with a different and shrinker-specific namespace. > > Agreed, but even if there right now is only a binary return message, is a > hardcoded -1 considered to be acceptable for an interface? IMHO, it is not > very readable nor intuitive for the users of the interface. Why not, as you > mention, add a define or enum in shrinker.h instead, e.g. SHRINKER_STOP or > something. That sounds OK to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
