[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOSNQF2WKang6DpGoVztybkEbtL=Uhc5J-WLvyfRhT3MGWgiaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 20:33:49 +0530
From: Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, manugautam@...gle.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvmem: rmem: Fix return value of rmem_read()
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:04 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 05:22:15PM +0530, Joy Chakraborty wrote:
> > > > Userspace will see a false error with nvmem cell reads from
> > > > nvmem_cell_attr_read() in current code, which should be fixed on
> > > > returning 0 for success.
> > >
> > > So maybe fix this all up to allow the read to return the actual amount
> > > read? That feels more "correct" to me.
> > >
> >
> > If I change the behavior of the nvmem_reg_read_t callback to negative
> > for error and number of bytes actually read for success then, other
> > than the core driver I would also have to change all the
> > nvmem-provider drivers.
> > Is it okay to do so ?
>
> Sure, why not? That seems like the correct fix to me, right?
Sure, I can do that.
Is it okay to change the if checks on the return code to "if (rc < 0)"
instead of "if (rc)" as a fix for the immediate issue with how return
value from rmem is handled which can be applied to older kernels.
In a separate patch I can change the definition of nvmem_reg_read_t()
to return ssize_t instead of int and make corresponding changes to
nvmem-provider drivers.
Does that sound okay ?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks
Joy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists