[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=MjDqawZx=+fKjaAs5SPfGQDEgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:25:04 +0200
From: Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
shiraz.hashim@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: let dev_set_drvdata return int instead
of void as it can fail
2011/4/6 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
> Hello,
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:36:46AM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>> 2011/4/6 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
>> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>> > ---
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I wasn't sure what to return when dev_set_drvdata is called with
>> > dev=NULL. I choosed 0, but -EINVAL would be OK for me, too. What do you
>> > think?
>> Why not just BUG_ON(!dev)? Is there a case when you might call this
>> with dev==NULL that's not a driver bug?
> I think BUG_ON is too harsh. Will resend with -EINVAL.
Maybe just WARN_ON, then? Please? ;-)
Error return with no other visible sign is easy to miss for driver
writers. Big bad backtrace in dmesg on the other hand attracts
attention.
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
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