On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:38:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Sudip, > > On 09/22/2015 06:52 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:39:36AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify > >> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, > >> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition. > > Just a little doubt. caller means the function which is calling this > > dgap_parsefile() or you meant the user? <snip> > > But I believe the patch and what the commit message says is true regardless > of the fact that the caller is just checking for != 0. dgap_firmware_load() > stills gets a wrong error condition whether it's checking it or not. Yes. I just had a doubt what you meant by caller. If user then I would have said that "patch is correct but commit message is not". :) regards sudip _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
