On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:50:08AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > Hi Darren, > > On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 23:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, September 05, 2014 07:17:57 PM Darren Hart wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > [...] > > > > static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm, > > > > @@ -278,12 +276,13 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm, > > > > struct eeepc_laptop *eeepc = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > int rv, value; > > > > > > > > - rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value); > > > > - if (rv > 0) > > > > - value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value); > > > > + rv = parse_arg(buf, &value); > > > > + if (rv < 0) > > > > + return rv; > > > > + value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value); > > > > if (value < 0) > > > > > > I suppose it's harmless, but it would be more explicit to reuse rv here instead > > > of value. > > Fine with me. > > > > > return -EIO; > > > > > > And as with Frans' version, I suggest propogating the error. We're talking about > > > a missing/invalid ACPI control method name here, ENODEV seems approprirate. > > > > > > Rafael, do you have a strong preference about what to return in such an event? > > > > No, I don't, although -ENXIO could be used here too. > > If you could say what value you'd like best I'll resend using that > value. (I don't know what the effect is of using a specific error here, > so I guess I'll have to bluff about it in the commit explanation.) First, I would prefer we propogate the error code rather than remap it. We could consider changing what the callee returns... #define EIO 5 /* I/O error */ #define ENXIO 6 /* No such device or address */ #define ENODEV 19 /* No such device */ Of those, ENXIO seems like the most appropriate in this case. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
