On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:39 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:00:11PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > [cut] > > To avoid further back and forth, what exactly is it that you would have > me do? That is, what do you consider to be the correct way to do this? > > Would you prefer me to add another function with a different name that > reimplements the functionality only with the exception? Something along > the lines of: > > int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev) > { > int ret; > > ret = driver_deferred_probe_check_state(dev); > if (ret == -ENODEV) > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > return ret; > } > > ? I'd need to split that up some more to avoid the warning that the > inner function prints before returning -ENODEV, but that's a minor > detail. Would that API be more to your liking? Well, why don't you do static int deferred_probe_check_state_internal(struct device *dev) { if (!initcalls_done) return -EPROBE_DEFER; if (!deferred_probe_timeout) { dev_WARN(dev, "deferred probe timeout, ignoring dependency"); return -ETIMEDOUT; } return 0; } int driver_deferred_probe_check_state(struct device *dev) { int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev); if (ret) return ret; dev_warn(dev, "ignoring dependency for device, assuming no driver"); return -ENODEV; } int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev) { int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev); if (ret) return ret; return -EPROBE_DEFER; }