[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110524123432.GB2929@riccoc20.at.omicron.at>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:34:32 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Nicolas Kaiser <nikai@...ai.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richard.cochran@...cron.at>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll()
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:51:47PM +0200, Nicolas Kaiser wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Kaiser <nikai@...ai.net>
> ---
> It looks to me like -ENODEV might not be a good return value
> in poll(). Would POLLERR be the correct one in this case?
>
> kernel/time/posix-clock.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> index c340ca6..2424d3f 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static unsigned int posix_clock_poll(struct file *fp, poll_table *wait)
> int result = 0;
>
> if (!clk)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + return POLLERR;
The condition (!clk) is only satisfied when 'zombie' is set,
indicating that the dynamic clock has disappeared. That is why the
file operations uniformly return ENODEV. So, I think it makes sense
the way that it is.
In addition, man 2 poll says,
POLLERR
Error condition (output only).
so using that error code would be misleading, IMHO.
Thanks,
Richard
--
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