On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:42:49PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > Would it be fair to say that for consistency we should then also > change the return values of acpi_setter_handle()? It has the same > basic layout and checks as set_acpi() and get_acpi() have. Yes, that would be appropriate as well. -- 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
