Looks like Kelly didn't introduce these since I see them on both the - and
the + lines.

But it might be easy to fix by just grep'ing for 'plfs_error_t res'

Kelly, if it's easy to do so, can you please go through and do that
grep/replace?  And then recommit?

I just talked to Aaron.  Once you recommit this, he'll tag 2.4 before this
change, and then
pull this and Chuck's recent code into master.

Thanks,

John


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM, David Bonnie <notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In fuse/plfs_fuse.cpp:
>
> > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ static struct pfuse_debug_driver *get_dbgdrv(const char *path) {
> >  // maybe at the cost of correctness.  hmmmm.
> >  int Plfs::makePlfsFile( string expanded_path, mode_t mode, int flags )
> >  {
> > -    int res = 0;
> > +    plfs_error_t res = PLFS_SUCCESS;
>
> Shouldn't these instances of "res" variables be "ret" as in return? I
> noticed it here first but there are a few new instances of these in the
> ad_plfs layer that I think should probably be named "ret_[rest of variable
> name]" rather than res.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/plfs/plfs-core/pull/261/files#r4724567>
> .
>