From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754290AbaIPLyd (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:54:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:40149 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754262AbaIPLya (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:54:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140915215527.GC7867@gmail.com> References: <1410563212-31565-1-git-send-email-fransklaver@gmail.com> <1410563212-31565-11-git-send-email-fransklaver@gmail.com> <20140915214902.GB64909@vmdeb7> <20140915215125.GA21435@kroah.com> <20140915215527.GC7867@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:54:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] eeepc-laptop: compare proper return values in get_cpufv From: Frans Klaver To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Darren Hart , Corentin Chary , Rafael Wysocki , acpi4asus-user , platform-driver-x86 , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi , "H. Peter Anvin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:51:25PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:49:02PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> > >> > This patch is fine as is. However, Greg has supported propogating the error code >> > through to the sysfs interface (if I understand him correctly on an earlier post >> > to this list). This would require an addition change to this patch would >> > propogated the get_cpufv error code in show_available_cpuv(), show_cpuv(), and >> > store_cpuv(). As it is, we return -ENODEV on any failure, where an ACPI call >> > error should probably return -ENXIO as I understand it. >> >> I really have no idea at this point in time what to recommend. How >> about just stick with what is happening today so that: >> >> > However, there was a rather famous change in error code handling in which pulse >> > audio broke and Linus was very upset with one of his maintainers. >> >> That doesn't happen :) > > So if I interpret that correctly, we're dropping the last patch > (ENODEV -> ENXIO) from the series? That's fine by me. As mentioned > earlier, I already saw something else break because I returned ENXIO > instead of ENODEV. > > Maybe it's a good idea to try and document the expected behavior > somewhere, if even Greg isn't sure what to do. For good measure: v2 will not change the return values at the sysfs interface, meaning we will always return -ENODEV on error. I am going to try to keep as much internal functions propagating errors as possible though, unless someone strongly disagrees. Thanks, Frans