* Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshet...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, meaning is different, see above.
> >
> > So that's rather convoluted:
> >
> > atomic64_inc_not_zero(): returns 1 on successful increase, 0 on
> > failure
> > sgx_inc_usage_count(): returns 0 on successful increase, 1 on
> > failure
> > sgx_open(): returns 0 on successful increase, -EBUSY
> > on failure
> >
> > Could we at least standardize sgx_inc_usage_count() on -EBUSY in the
> > failure case, so it's a more obvious pattern:
> >
> > + ret = sgx_inc_usage_count();
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> >
>
> Yes, will rewrite accordingly. Especially since I have to return two different
> error codes into sgx_open() now to indicate different nature of issues with
> running EUDPATESVN: temporal failure due to lack of entropy (-EAGAIN)
> and potentially persistent problem when getting unexpected error codes
> (-EIO).
Makes sense!
Thanks,
Ingo
