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]


>> 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 ...


[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