[PATCH v5 13/13] string: Add strerrorname and strerrordesc

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 03/07/2020 18:19, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 7/3/20 5:01 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2020 18:43, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On 6/19/20 9:43 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>> The strerrorname returns error number name (i.g. "EINVAL" for EINVAL)
>>>> while strerrordesc returns string describing error number (i.g
>>>> "Invalid argument" for EINVAL).  Different than strerror, strerrordesc
>>>> does not attempt to translate the return description and both functions
>>>> return NULL for an invalid error number.
>>>>
>>>> They should be used instead of sys_errlist and sys_nerr and both are
>>>
>>> s/and both/, both/g
>>
>> Ack.
>>
>>>
>>>> thread and async-signal safe.  These functions are GNU extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Checked on x86-64-linux-gnu, i686-linux-gnu, powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
>>>> and s390x-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>> Why not strerrorname_np or strerrordesc_np? We don't have to use *_np,
>>> but these functions are fiarly close in name to 'strerror' and so it
>>> might be beneficial to use _np at the end, like you did for sigabbrev_np
>>> and sigdescr_np. Thoughts?
>>
>> I don't have a strong preference here, on a patch iteration I used 
>> the the _np suffix and Florian has pointed out the str* namespace
>> is reserved for libc implementations.
>>
>> But I think the _np is slight better to indicate it is an extension.
>> If it is eventually adopted by other system without the _np suffix
>> we can easily create an alias.
>>
>> So I have added the _np suffix.
>>
>>>
>>> No regression on x86_64 and i686.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>>
>> Should I add the Reviewed-by as well?
> 
> No. I want to review the final patch and I'll give Reviewed-by there.
> 

Alright, should I re-send it with the _np changes?