[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140519201712.GD27506@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:17:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] dma-mapping: Add devm_ interface for dma_map_single()
Hello, Eli.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:19:21PM +0300, Eli Billauer wrote:
> >>+ if (dma_mapping_error(dev, dma_handle)) {
> >>+ devres_free(dr);
> >>+ return 0;
> >Can't we just keep returning dma_handle? Even if that means invoking
> >->mapping_error() twice? It's yucky to have subtly different error
> >return especially because in most cases it won't fail.
> Yucky it is indeed. There are however two problems with keeping the existing
> API:
>
> * What to do if devres_alloc() fails. How do I signal back an error? The
> only way I can think of is returning zero. But if the caller should know
> that zero means failure, I've already broken the API. I might as well return
> zero for any kind of failure.
What can't it just do the following?
if (dma_mapping_error(dev, dma_handle)) {
devres_free(dr);
return dma_handle;
}
The caller would have to invoke dma_mapping_error() again but is that
a problem?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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