On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error
> > instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine,
> > although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to
> > return different errors.
>
> Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this
> series.
So I do think that yes, dma_mapping_error() should return an error
code, not 0/1.
But I was really hoping that the individual drivers themselves could
return error codes. Right now the patch-series has code like this:
ret = needs_bounce(dev, dma_addr, size);
if (ret < 0)
- return ARM_MAPPING_ERROR;
+ return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
which while it all makes sense in the context of this patch-series, I
*really* think it would have been so much nicer to return the error
code 'ret' instead (which in this case is -E2BIG).
I don't think this is a huge deal, but ERR_PTR() has been hugely
successful elsewhere. And I'm not hugely convinced about all these
"any address can be valid" arguments. How the hell do you generate a
random dma address in the last page that isn't even page-aligned?
Linus
|