Hello, On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34:04PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:16:31AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > I suggested that some time ago with limited success, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200129115516.zsvxu56e6h7gheiw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > . > > > > > In the meantime I would prefer using %d when we have integer > > > error. We should not see these error messages anyway ;) > > > > I don't agree. Error messages are supposed to be helpful and I prefer > > some casting between error pointer and error int over emitting bare > > numbers to the kernel log. (And additionally the uglyness might help to > > convince the vsprintf guys that %de might be a good idea after all :-) > > Sorry, but I do not think that I want to introduce this pointless > casting just to sway printk folks. Either we have proper way of > formatting error codes, or we do not and we stick with what was working > since forever. You got me wrong. Getting an argument to rediscuss %de is just a minor side reason for me. Getting an expressive error message is the relevant reason. There is also an inconsitence in what you suggest that I don't like. If in a probe function devm_clk_get fails it should say "-ENODEV" but if it's clk_enable that fails it should say "-5"? Also "we stick with what was working since forever" is a poor argument. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
