[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d5c56ab-fe37-f132-8891-f20f2bfddb9f@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:34:34 -0500
From: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <andrew@...n.ch>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<hkallweit1@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] net: dp83869: Add speed optimization
feature
Jakub
On 9/8/20 12:47 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:07:22 -0500 Dan Murphy wrote:
>> On 9/5/20 1:38 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 06:42:59 -0500 Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>> +static int dp83869_set_downshift(struct phy_device *phydev, u8 cnt)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int val, count;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (cnt > DP83869_DOWNSHIFT_8_COUNT)
>>>> + return -E2BIG;
>>> ERANGE
>> This is not checking a range but making sure it is not bigger then 8.
>>
>> IMO I would use ERANGE if the check was a boundary check for upper and
>> lower bounds.
> Yeah, ERANGE is not perfect, but the strerror for E2BIG is
> "Argument list too long" - IDK if users seeing that will know that it
> means the value is too large. Perhaps we should stick to EINVAL?
EINVAL works for me to.
Dan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists