Em Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:19:02 +0200 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:12:16PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > It is non-standard to return -1 instead of an error code. This > > Read what I said: -1 is fed into edac_mc_handle_error() already for > other layers. It is *the* standard value to denote not-available in the > EDAC core. > > > is the only function at the EDAC kAPI that does that. > > Why does it matter? This is not a syscall retval or something - it is > used internally in the reporting path. > > > Ok, we could document it at the edac_core.h, but IMHO, it is > > better to have it fixed. > > For something to be fixed it needs to be broken first. > > Again, read what I said: making it return -EINVAL actually breaks > i82975x_process_error_info(). Not to mention that returning -EINVAL in > that context is completely useless. OK, let's just drop this one. I'll fix the documentation accordingly. Thanks, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
