RE: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when explicitly indicated by platform

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


+	if (val == EINJ_STATUS_FAIL)
 		return -EBUSY;
+	else if (val == EINJ_STATUS_INVAL)
+		return -EINVAL;

The ACPI Specification is really vague here. Documented error codes are

0 = Success (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_SUCCESS)
1 = Unknown failure (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_FAIL)
2 = Invalid Access (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_INVAL)

I don't see how reporting -EBUSY for the "Unknown Failure" case is
actually better.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux