[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yumh9NLeDAMJBJ48@equinox>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:15:16 +0100
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com, martin@...ser.cx,
        straube.linux@...il.com, fmdefrancesco@...il.com,
        abdun.nihaal@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: r8188eu: convert rtw_set_802_11_add_wep
 error code semantics
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:10:21PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
> 
> Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> says:
> > -	if (!rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(padapter, &wep)) {
> > +	if (rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(padapter, &wep)) {
> >   		if (rf_on == pwrpriv->rf_pwrstate)
> >   			ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >   		goto exit;
> 
> is it intentional to ignore an error in case of rf_on !=
> pwrpriv->rf_pwrstate?
> 
> 
Hi Pavel,
Somewhat yes, in the sense that this is existing behaviour and changing
it is a semantic change in the driver, thus arguably outside the scope
of a patch/patch set that is intended to just focus on error code
handling (moving from _SUCCESS/_FAIL to 0 and -EWHATEVER).
Not fixed to that by any means though, if you would prefer it be
restructured as well. I need to do a V2 for this anyway.
Regards,
Phil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
