On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_OMAP_HWSPINLOCK */
>> +
>> +static inline struct omap_hwspinlock *omap_hwspinlock_request(void)
>> +{
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
>> +}
>
> One note, do you really want to fail if this option isn't built into the
> kernel, yet you have a driver that is asking for it? Shouldn't you
> instead just silently succeed, and let the code path get compiled away?
>
> We did that for debugfs, after learning the pain that procfs had with
> its api for "is not built". Doing it the way you are requires the user
> to always test for -ENOSYS, when in reality, if that is returned,
> there's nothing the driver can do about it, so it should just not worry
> about it.
>
> Just something to think about.
Completely agree; if hwspinlock support is not needed, we better let
its users run uninterruptedly. I'll change it.
Thanks,
Ohad.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
