[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871qija4qt.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:20:10 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Li zeming <zeming@...china.com>, jstultz@...gle.com,
sboyd@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li zeming <zeming@...china.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: alarmtimer: Optimization function return value
On Sat, Jun 10 2023 at 02:09, Li zeming wrote:
> if (!test_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc->features))
> - return -1;
> + return -EPERM;
I know you are only replacing the -1, but EPERM does not make any sense
here. It's not a permission problem, it's the lack of a feature. So the
proper code is -ENODEV.
> if (!device_may_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
> - return -1;
> + return -EPERM;
Ditto
> pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer",
> PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, NULL, 0);
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rtcdev_lock, flags);
> if (!IS_ERR(pdev) && !rtcdev) {
> if (!try_module_get(rtc->owner)) {
> - ret = -1;
> + ret = -EPERM;
Same here.
But this error case is broken because it does not undo the
device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, true);
So this needs
+ device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, false);
before the goto
> goto unlock;
> }
>
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
> get_device(dev);
> pdev = NULL;
> } else {
> - ret = -1;
> + ret = -EPERM;
ENODEV
> }
So please do not blindly replace something without actually analysing
it. There is a reason why these things are not just "fixed" with a
script.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists