On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:19:41PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 20-11-13 12:17:32, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:43:51PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > static int cxl_mem_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct cxl_mem *cxlm = ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
> > > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > - struct cxl_mem *cxlm;
> > >
> > > The order was better before ("dev", then "clxm"). Oh, I suppose this
> > > is a "reverse Christmas tree" thing.
> > >
> >
> > I don't actually care either way as long as it's consistent. I tend to do
> > reverse Christmas tree for no particular reason.
>
> Yeah, reverse Christmas tree for no particular reason.
FWIW, the usual drivers/pci style is to order the decls in the order
the variables are used in the code. But this isn't drivers/pci, so
it's up to you. I only noticed because changing the order made the
diff bigger than it needed to be.
> > > I think this would be easier to read if cxl_mem_create() returned NULL
> > > on failure (it prints error messages and we throw away
> > > -ENXIO/-ENOMEM distinction here anyway) so you could do:
> > >
> > > struct cxl_mem *cxlm = NULL;
> > >
> > > for (...) {
> > > if (...) {
> > > cxlm = cxl_mem_create(pdev, reg_lo, reg_hi);
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (!cxlm)
> > > return -ENXIO; /* -ENODEV might be more natural? */
> > >
> >
> > I agree on both counts. Both of these came from Dan, so I will let him explain.
>
> I'm not attached to differentiating -ENOMEM from -ENXIO and am ok to
> drop the ERR_PTR() return. I do tend to use -ENXIO for failure to
> perform an initialization action vs failure to even find the device,
> but if -ENODEV seems more idiomatic to Bjorn, I won't argue.
-ENXIO is fine with me. I just don't see it as often so I don't
really know what it is.
Bjorn
