[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181128074117.GA21126@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:17 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
linux@...linux.org.uk,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, robin.murphy@....com,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops V2
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:55:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > No, the big immediate benefit of allowing "return -EINVAL" etc is
> > simply legibility and error avoidance.
>
> Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error
> instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine,
> although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to
> return different errors.
Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this
series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists