[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=TPNuDeEwqZzpSaz71rjghjg=6V0stFFcmpB+O@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:18:57 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Simon Que <sque@...com>,
"Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T" <balajitk@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers: misc: add omap_hwspinlock driver
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_OMAP_HWSPINLOCK */
>> +
>> +static inline struct omap_hwspinlock *omap_hwspinlock_request(void)
>> +{
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
>> +}
>
> One note, do you really want to fail if this option isn't built into the
> kernel, yet you have a driver that is asking for it? Shouldn't you
> instead just silently succeed, and let the code path get compiled away?
>
> We did that for debugfs, after learning the pain that procfs had with
> its api for "is not built". Doing it the way you are requires the user
> to always test for -ENOSYS, when in reality, if that is returned,
> there's nothing the driver can do about it, so it should just not worry
> about it.
>
> Just something to think about.
Completely agree; if hwspinlock support is not needed, we better let
its users run uninterruptedly. I'll change it.
Thanks,
Ohad.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
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