On Thursday, October 5, 2017 4:01:48 PM CEST Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:59:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 8:04:24 AM CEST Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > Fix more return codes for device property: Align return codes of
> > > __acpi_node_get_property_reference. In particular what was missed
> > > previously:
> > >
> > > -EPROTO could be returned in certain cases, now -EINVAL;
> > > -EINVAL was returned if the property was not found, now -ENOENT;
> > > -EINVAL was returned also if the index was higher than the number of
> > > entries in a package, now -ENOENT.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ("device property: Align return codes of __acpi_node_get_property_reference")
> > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Hyungwoo Yang <hyungwoo.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the patch I posted the previous time to remedy the issue
> > > ("device property: Align return codes of
> > > _acpi_node_get_property_reference") did not fully fix the issue.
> >
> > OK, thanks for letting me know, but why didn't it?
>
> My testing appears to have been more limited than I thought, Hyungwoo later
> on found this out. (Reported-by: Hyungwoo... would be appropriate, I'll add
> that the next time.)
>
> >
> > > drivers/acpi/property.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/property.c b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> > > index 5a8ac5e1081b..8c28c516e7ec 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> > > @@ -592,8 +592,16 @@ int __acpi_node_get_property_reference(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > >
> > > ret = acpi_data_get_property(data, propname, ACPI_TYPE_ANY, &obj);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - return ret;
> > > + switch (ret) {
> > > + case -EINVAL:
> > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > + case -EPROTO:
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + default:
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> >
> > To be clear, I'm not going to apply anything like the above.
>
> On exactly what grounds? You don't like the combination of switch and if,
> or because of the return values themselves? Or something else?
I just don't like changing error codes into different ones on the fly like
this. It always indicates some bad design somewhere and this particular
piece of code just goes over the top with that IMO.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
