>> I don't see how reporting -EBUSY for the "Unknown Failure" case is >> actually better. > > Tony, did you misunderstand this patch? > > The original code report -EBUSY for both "Unknown Failure" and > "Invalid Access" cases. I mixed up what was already in the kernel with what the patch was changing. > This patch intends to report -EINVAL for "Invalid Access" case > and keeps reporting -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case unchanged. > Although -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case is not a good choice. > Will -EIO for "Unknown failure" case be better? Is this for some real use case? Do you have a BIOS EINJ implementation that is returning these different codes? What will the user do differently if they see these different error strings? # echo 1 > error_inject ... different error messages here ... -Tony
