On 05/10/2010 09:17 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday 10 May 2010 08:23:28 am H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 05/10/2010 01:06 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> Source please? I was not aware that there was a standard governing >>> returns code for module init methods. >> >> ENODEV means "not a device node." >> ENXIO means "hardware not present." >> > > There is no device node in question. Again, could you please point me to > the list of allowed error codes for init methods? According to SUS, > we need to follow ERROR section of the appropriate function, and I do > not believe that spec covers cases if driver binding and module loading. > > FWIW -ENODEV is explicitly allowed in our device core and means "device > not found", especially in context of platform devices. I do not see the > need of changing that. > The problem with this abuse of ENODEV is that people start using it elsewhere, where it *DOES* matter than ENXIO is the proper return code. Yes, we handle incorrect uses of ENODEV, but the right thing to do is to teach people to use ENXIO properly. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|