On 05/10/15 15:24, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > >>> But I am not really sure where you are seeing the bug (mapping to >>> -EPERM) in this case? I think the only caller of hiddev_connect() >>> should be hid_connect(), and the only thing that guy cares about >>> whether individual callbacks succeed or fail, so that it sets >>> hdev->clamed flags accordingly. >>> >>> Could you please be more specific about the -EPERM mapping you are >>> talking about? >>> >> I agree with you. The only caller of hiddev_connect() only checks if the >> callback succeded. It checks if the return < 0. >> What I meant is that -1 means -EPERM. [0] > > I still don't understand what problem you are chasing here, sorry. EPERM > is defined to be 1, yes. So are many other completely unrelated #defines. > >> This patch is purely about the correctness of using -ENOMEM. The word >> "propagated" was not the best way to describe this problem. I could edit >> the commit message if you would like. > > You seem to imply that someone might be interpreting that -1 as a define > from errno.h. But that's not the case. > > Are you going to look at every 'return -1' occurence in the kernel and > convert it to something else? That can keep you busy for quite some time: > > $ git grep 'return -1' | wc -l > 9167 > > The only cleanup I'd imagine at least remotely possible in this case would > be to convert the ->connect() callbacks return bool. > This is a very good point. I will write a second version of the patch that converts the return to a boolean. Thanks for the review, Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
