Hey On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 6:21 PM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This can help debugging the situation > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Hi, > > not entirely sure if we can use this in a such simple way. > > However, this is useful to mimic device behaviour from userspace. > > Cheers, > Benjamin > > drivers/hid/uhid.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/uhid.c b/drivers/hid/uhid.c > index fa0cc0899827..2fa32e7fc733 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/uhid.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/uhid.c > @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static int uhid_hid_set_report(struct hid_device *hid, unsigned char rnum, > goto unlock; > > if (uhid->report_buf.u.set_report_reply.err) > - ret = -EIO; > + ret = -uhid->report_buf.u.set_report_reply.err; I am generally in favor of this. But: 1) can you do this for both set_report *and* get_report? 2) I think you have to filter some of the error codes. For instance, if you return one of the -ERESTARTSYS codes, this might cause the syscall to restart (if auto-restart is enabled on this context). At the same time, this is not *that* bad. It might even be useful for the userspace driver to trigger an EINTR. At least we should be aware of this. So maybe filters are not necessary.. Mhhh. Comments? Thanks David > else > ret = count; > > -- > 2.19.2 >
