On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 05:53:20PM -0800, Rasesh Mody wrote: > >From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx] > >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:50 AM > > > >The current error handling doesn't work because we flash_part is a u32 > >so the checks for negative error codes don't work. I considered making > >things signed but I don't know the hardware enough to say if that's a > >problem. Really, we don't use the error codes so just returning zero > >for all problems is fine. > > Hi Dan, > > We can't return 0 from the bnad_get_flash_partition_by_offset() on > error as the flash partition 0 is a optrom partition. Also we got > comments to return proper Linux error codes as ethtool application > expects so. It's already treated as an error. A return value of zero means the user gets a return value of -EFAULT. I'm slightly confused by your email. My patch was already merged into git. Can you just send a patch which does what you want? I don't know the subsystem well enough to say how you want zero returns to be handled if the original code was not correct. regards, dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
