[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130514141906.GS30128@mwanda>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:06 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...com>
Cc: Wei Yongjun <weiyj.lk@...il.com>, gmate.amit@...il.com,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, manohar.vanga@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yamanetoshi@...il.com, yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn,
joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vme: fix error return code in vme_user_probe()
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:56:17PM +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On 13/05/13 09:51, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:16:00AM +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> >> On 13/05/13 07:05, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> >>> From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn>
> >>>
> >>> Fix to return -ENOMEM in the resource alloc error handling
> >>> case instead of 0, as done elsewhere in this function.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Wei,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your patch. As this is resource allocation rather than memory
> >> allocation that is failing, would -EAGAIN not make more sense than -ENOMEM?
> >>
> >
> > ENOMEM is better. EAGAIN is for when trylock() fails etc. In other
> > words we are not allowed to block and someone is using the lock we
> > need.
> >
>
> ENOMEM just doesn't seem to describe the error very well. This error will be
> triggered if no free VME windows are available for the driver to use - there
> are typically 8 master and 8 slave windows provided in hardware.
>
> How about EBUSY (Device or resource busy)?
EBUSY would work.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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