From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pv50p00im-hyfv10011601.me.com (pv50p00im-hyfv10011601.me.com [17.58.6.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC5B14A4C6 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 12:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.58.6.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744028404; cv=none; b=M1MV+SeI+936XwrwqabugKcIp3vBy7LsLcTmsC7IshaFXtPsBCZs7VSXz4xSkoc4ikvJW8VIO2vF4TFcJ6a4NsaNvML7uRxA4hWQKf5HJRcO56BCofFrgvf9XPu0h6NL32i0BhLHVDzFw5ezsVmxwM2Zq+p754KyWVsWfe0cbAQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744028404; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g1abDZwvXwceS+Lyb8/fvN1t0E10b7TNUO5oyLG7MSU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=eLQYUlxIj6/YsgXAjnUvc8ZDqH4yJ30hVFDJQcwhpXlUnVw/fh9Qcv7MJeB5Xq+Q745egZ1QbJuArYKzM89gS/ijeOwMohWs/z9MD8K24QXj9LvmY2wKC+CQm5/XuqiFvmwBbRAgUzfOq70T6cF2W/4zhxM5oqaqeb1ENaSND7M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=icloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=icloud.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com header.i=@icloud.com header.b=OEQQlaNe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.58.6.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=icloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=icloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com header.i=@icloud.com header.b="OEQQlaNe" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; bh=g1abDZwvXwceS+Lyb8/fvN1t0E10b7TNUO5oyLG7MSU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type:x-icloud-hme; b=OEQQlaNejqMomDvzKuEMa9mld74Z4AcWzkDYJJg9OfAsr/GQRhp3vg6HqOdZuwcDF 0ctEb7B+eYu/04Qr81dBnZ3PKpxkdE3MOvkVl1kPfoe2CKDE9CC83xuyWH2EadfP6p 1KOdHKfTEIu4lRcVSEMyIgsL4m4KBKhJ/kQ8albmpCyvVXOj5vGpKJQBWGr6SX29IF 0GrAJfy85mQx2P77RrMYVjCVWz47tYlfFqzW/9Iy+01/4wIDsvHpSGuQ/pbreSfKva gTWlvmnfz/6Eo8YpsiKsniVusHc9cAn13nsT0W9g7FLDSVf9h12bxWGI4bSUib2Yhx WXY534tWcr9vQ== Received: from [192.168.1.26] (pv50p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.56.9.10]) by pv50p00im-hyfv10011601.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32DFEC8017D; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 12:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <77d7aede-0e4a-4ef7-8b51-4028c1f677f6@icloud.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:19:55 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] errseq: Eliminate special limitation for macro MAX_ERRNO To: Jeff Layton , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zijun Hu References: <20250407-improve_errseq-v1-1-7b27cbeb8298@quicinc.com> <17f1c39447c3706387d62224018522d4dcbf85bf.camel@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Zijun Hu In-Reply-To: <17f1c39447c3706387d62224018522d4dcbf85bf.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-GUID: KDwk9knJ_vy9sp_CVpKj25u2FzucHiFh X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: KDwk9knJ_vy9sp_CVpKj25u2FzucHiFh X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1095,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-04-07_04,2025-04-03_03,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=340 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2504070087 On 2025/4/7 20:05, Jeff Layton wrote: > Patch looks like it will do the right thing, but why change this? Is just make errseq implementation more generic. > there some plan to change the value of MAX_ERRNO that I'm not aware of? no.