There are a few places where it was added in as the new argument to functions as well (to handle the return values).

Most of the occurrences come from the actual return variable but the others all seem to be in the form of res_[varname] instead of ret_[varname].

- Dave

On Jun 17, 2013, at 10:10 AM, John Bent 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;


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
…<x-msg://2986/#>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM, David Bonnie <notifications@github.com<mailto: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> .

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/plfs/plfs-core/pull/261/files#r4727514>.