On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Matti Vaittinen > <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The checkpacth instructs to switch from ENOSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP. > > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP > > > > Make the gpiolib allow drivers to return both so driver developers > > can avoid one of the checkpatch complaints. > > Internally we are fine to use the ENOTSUPP. > Checkpatch false positives there. > > I doubt we need this change. Rather checkpatch should rephrase this to > point out that this is only applicable to _user-visible_ error path. > Cc'ed Joe. Adding CC for Jakub Kicinski who added that particular rule/test. And the output message report of the rule is merely a suggestion indicating a preference. It's always up to an individual to accept/reject. At best, perhaps wordsmithing the checkpatch message might be an OK option. +# ENOTSUPP is not a standard error code and should be avoided in new patches. +# Folks usually mean EOPNOTSUPP (also called ENOTSUP), when they type ENOTSUPP. +# Similarly to ENOSYS warning a small number of false positives is expected. + if (!$file && $line =~ /\bENOTSUPP\b/) { + if (WARN("ENOTSUPP", + "ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP\n" . $herecurr) && + $fix) { + $fixed[$fixlinenr] =~ s/\bENOTSUPP\b/EOPNOTSUPP/; + } + } +