On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 04:47:11PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:44:25 +0300, > Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:00:43PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > > > > and a WARN_ON + -EINVAL in line6_init_audio to catch future > > > > > offenders. > > > > > > > > Returning -EINVAL is a bad idea because it would break the driver > > > > completely and make it unusable. > > > > > > > > > > Well I would vote for returning the error anyway. > > > > I'm trying to be polite, but you are talking about adding regressions > > deliberately... > > > > It's very rare for people to deliberately add regressions to the kernel. > > I have only seen it one time before. > > I don't think Dan would be against returning -EINVAL if all the > offender codes have been fixed (e.g. truncating strings to fit with > the fixed arrays) at first. Then it'd be a good help to catch any > future bugs. But, having -EINVAL without fixing the caller side means > essentially that you're introducing the breakage intentionally > although you know it certainly breaks, which is obviously bad. > > We clearly have a serious miscommunication here (and apparently it started with me not addressing the concern of complete driver breakage). line6_init_audio consumers have to be fixed first, no doubt about that. I was only commenting on catching *future* offenders, which I thought would implictly mean *afterwards*. With that in mind it would seem we are in agreement after all. :-) As far getting this done maybe OP is interested. -- Mateusz Guzik _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
