On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:47:33PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Juni 2010 22:22:54 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > Am Montag, 7. Juni 2010 18:23:16 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 03:13:42PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > static int usbtouch_open(struct input_dev *input)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = input_get_drvdata(input);
> > > > > + int r;
> > > > >
> > > > > usbtouch->irq->dev = interface_to_usbdev(usbtouch->interface);
> > > > >
> > > > > + r = usb_autopm_get_interface(usbtouch->interface) ? -EIO : 0;
> > > >
> > > > Why are we clobbering error code with -EIO? We should propagate te code
> > > > returned to us (here and below).
> > >
> > > usb_autopm_get_interface() uses internal USB error codes which with
> > > a few exceptions, do not have the meaning error codes in user space
> > > have.
> >
> > But other drivers don't do this. What's special about usbtouch?
>
> Then I'd say the other drivers are wrong. We cannot leak USB specific
> codes. Maybe we should pass -ENOMEM and -ENODEV, but the others
> really don't mean anything as generic codes.
>
No, I'd say that usb_autopm_get_interface() is wrong - since it is
supposed to be used by drivers who are not concerned about USB-specific
codes these functions should not leak them to the callers but rather
provide ones suitable for reporting upstream.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
