[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111008001237.GA30551@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:12:37 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@...com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28:33PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:12:45 MDT, Grant Likely said:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:
>
> > >> +#define EPROBE_DEFER 517 /* restart probe again after some time */
> > >
> > > Can we really do this?
>
> > According to Arnd, yes this is okay.
>
> > > Isn't this some user/kernel api here?
>
> > > What's wrong with just "overloading" on top of an existing error code?
> > > Surely one of the other 516 types could be used here, right?
>
> > overloading makes it really hard to find the users at a later date.
>
> Would proposing '#define EPROBE_DEFER EAGAIN' be acceptable to everybody? That
> would allow overloading EAGAIN, but still make it easy to tell the usages apart
> if we need to separate them later...
Yes, please do that, it is what USB does for it's internal error code
handling.
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