On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:05:54PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Tuesday 26 January 2016 à 13:49 +0100, Borislav Petkov a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > But I'd say -EPERM is hardly better. The problem with -ENODEV is that it
> > > is already returned by this function for several other error causes.
> > > Also the aer-inject user-space tool will print the error message from
> > > the error code, and I don't think "No such device" is helpful in that
> > > case. What about -ENOTSUPP ("Operation not supported") or
> > > -EEPROTONOSUPPORT ("Protocol not supported")?
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> > > I can change it if nobody objects. I think the change can be included in
> > > this patch as it is quite related.
> >
> > I'd do a separate patch but this is only my opinion. I guess that's
> > Bjorn's call.
>
> I am almost always advocating for separate patches, but here it seemed
> like hairsplitting so I wasn't sure. I'm fine both ways really.
I'd prefer one patch to change the errno (only) and another to add the
printk logging.
I definitely prefer dev_* whenever possible. The aer_inject user
knows the relevant device at the time, but dev_* makes the dmesg log
more useful later.
In fact, your patch only adds logging to some error paths. I'd like
to have some indication in dmesg that aer_inject was used at all.
Maybe even a synopsis of the injected error, though maybe that's too
much if aer_inject is used in an automated way. It would just be nice
to have a dmesg indication that subsequent AER events *might* be
injected rather than real errors.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
