On Sunday, August 22, 2021 2:39:34 PM CEST Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 03:10:56PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote: > > On 8/22/21 1:59 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:09:29 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: [...] > > > So, it's up to the callers to test if (!_rtw_read*()) and then act > > > accordingly. If they get 0 they should know how to handle the errors. > > > > Yes, but _rtw_read*() == 0 indicates 2 states: > > 1. Error on transfer side > > 2. Actual register value is 0 > > That's not a good design, it should be fixed. Note there is the new > usb_control_msg_recv() function which should probably be used instead > here, to prevent this problem from happening. I think that no functions should return 0 for signaling FAILURE. If I'm not wrong, the kernel quite always prefers to return 0 on SUCCESS and <0 on FAILURE. Why don't you just fix this? > > > In summation. if anything should be changed, it is the code of the callers of > > > _rtw_read*() if you find out they they don't properly handle the returning > > > values of this function. You should find every place where _rtw_read*() are > > > called and figure out if the returns are properly checked and handled; if not, > > > make some change only there. > > > > > > Larry, Philip, where are you? Am I missing something? > > Relax, there is no need to get jumpy, people do not have to respond > instantly to emails here. Especially when it is not their job to do so. I should have placed a big smile at the end of the phrase. I was just kidding while trying to get their attention. I know there is no hurry and that no one has any obligation of this kind. Again, just kidding :) Thanks, Fabio > greg k-h
