On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:50:51 +0000
Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:38:52 -0800, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +int drm_mode_getplane(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > + struct drm_file *file_priv)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_mode_get_plane *plane_resp = data;
> > + struct drm_mode_object *obj;
> > + struct drm_plane *plane;
> > + uint32_t __user *format_ptr;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
> > + obj = drm_mode_object_find(dev, plane_resp->plane_id,
> > + DRM_MODE_OBJECT_PLANE);
> > + if (!obj) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> We had begun to use ENOENT for failure to find the specified object to
> give a little variation to our error codes. Still not very widespread,
> but I think a good practice to encourage :)
Ok both good comments; fixed in the latest update.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
