On 4/2/11, Mattia Dongili <malattia@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:55:38PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On 4/2/11, Mattia Dongili <malattia@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> > @@ -810,6 +810,11 @@ static int sony_nc_handles_cleanup(struct
>> > platform_device *pd)
>> > static int sony_find_snc_handle(int handle)
>> > {
>> > int i;
>> > +
>> > + /* not initialized yet, return early */
>> > + if (!handles)
>> > + return -1;
>>
>> -1 is -EPERM. That's not the right error code here. Maybe -EINVAL?
>
> this error is not propagated to userspace. If necessary I can review all
> error codes in the sony-laptop internal functions (where -1 is a fairly
> common return code for error conditions).
That would be good, but it's going beyond the call of duty. The main thing
is to not introduce new slop.
>
> I remember a discussion on LKML recently about error codes but I'm not
> sure what the outcome was (if any).
>
People sometimes think -1 is a generic error code, but it's not. It has
a specific wrong meaning. In fact, -1 is never the right error code.
It's should
either be -EPERM, or the appropriate error code.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
