On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Frans Klaver <fransklaver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:51:25PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:49:02PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> > >> > This patch is fine as is. However, Greg has supported propogating the error code >> > through to the sysfs interface (if I understand him correctly on an earlier post >> > to this list). This would require an addition change to this patch would >> > propogated the get_cpufv error code in show_available_cpuv(), show_cpuv(), and >> > store_cpuv(). As it is, we return -ENODEV on any failure, where an ACPI call >> > error should probably return -ENXIO as I understand it. >> >> I really have no idea at this point in time what to recommend. How >> about just stick with what is happening today so that: >> >> > However, there was a rather famous change in error code handling in which pulse >> > audio broke and Linus was very upset with one of his maintainers. >> >> That doesn't happen :) > > So if I interpret that correctly, we're dropping the last patch > (ENODEV -> ENXIO) from the series? That's fine by me. As mentioned > earlier, I already saw something else break because I returned ENXIO > instead of ENODEV. > > Maybe it's a good idea to try and document the expected behavior > somewhere, if even Greg isn't sure what to do. For good measure: v2 will not change the return values at the sysfs interface, meaning we will always return -ENODEV on error. I am going to try to keep as much internal functions propagating errors as possible though, unless someone strongly disagrees. Thanks, Frans -- 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
