[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110508105027.GI27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 11:50:27 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: George Kashperko <george@...u.edu.ua>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Michael Büsch <mb@...sch.de>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Andy Botting <andy@...ybotting.com>,
linuxdriverproject <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai,axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus
driver
On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 2011/5/8 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>:
> > On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 08:48:10PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> Really, what's wrong with that? Does it kill anyone's pet we print
> >> this? We also do:
> >> pr_err("Scanning failed because of wrong CID\n");
> >> return -1;
> >> While we could drop pr_err. Why to do this? Advanced used can always
> >> check what -1 means.
> >
> > And why return -1 when we have a system of error codes? I _really_ wish
> > people would stop returning -1 for "some random error occurred".
>
> You commented on imagined code, but we actually do sth similar in code.
>
> I did this because:
> 1) I had no idea what err code would be valid for invalid EPROM layout
> (content). Nothing from include/asm-generic/errno-base.h sounds
> reasonable.
> 2) I wanted to use different error codes for different EPROM layout
> issues. Sometimes we don't get CIA block. Sometimes we don't get CIB
> block. Sometimes there is problem with master port (not found in EPROM
> when expected). They all would probably use the same errno.
>
> Could you help me with this?
The problem is if you start using -1 and mixing it with stuff which does
return negative errno codes, you end up hitting one of two bugs:
1. you interpret -1 as being -EPERM when actually you meant something else.
2. you check the function's return value for -1 rather than < 0, and you
unintentionally ignore valid -errno codes.
So it's normally far better to find something in the errno stuff which
approximates the error you have rather than using -1. Eg, if something
is invalid and you can't find something which fits, -EINVAL is probably
a good idea.
If you can't access the eeprom because its not responding, maybe -EIO
or -ETIMEDOUT would be better than -1?
Maybe for CRC errors, or unexpected data -EILSEQ would be appropriate?
Maybe if something being requested isn't found, -ENOENT would be better
(may not be a file or directory, but it approximates the error as being
'error no entry').
--
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