[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41840b750611010836qe9d49a0q6c5179babd6bc137@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:36:37 +0200
From: "Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@...il.com>
To: "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Richard Hughes" <hughsient@...il.com>,
"Xavier Bestel" <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>,
"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>, davidz@...hat.com,
"Dan Williams" <dcbw@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...top.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, len.brown@...el.com,
greg@...ah.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
"linux-thinkpad mailing list" <linux-thinkpad@...ux-thinkpad.org>,
"Pavel Machek" <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: Battery class driver.
On 11/1/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 13:26 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > With the battery class driver, how would that be conveyed? Would the
> > > sysfs file be deleted in this case, or would the value of the sysfs
> > > key be something like "<invalid>".
> >
> > I'd be inclined to make the read return -EINVAL.
>
> -EIO for transient errors (e.g. access to the embedded controller/battery
> charger/whatever fails at that instant), -EINVAL for "not supported"
> (missing ACPI method, attribute not supported in the specific hardware)?
Shouldn't it be -EIO or -EBUSY for transient errors (depending on
type), and -ENXIO when not provided by hardware?
The -EINVAL is more appropriate for bad user-supplied values (out of
range etc.) to writable attributes.
Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists