pt., 15 lut 2019 o 11:26 Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>
>
>
> On 15/02/2019 09:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> rval will be masked with STOP MASK, so the above statement could be
> >> false even if we have error.
> >> So you should consider returning an errono which can be understood by user:
> >>
> >> may be something like this:
> >>
> >> if (rval & NOTIFY_STOP_MASK) {
> >> rval = notifier_to_errno(rval);
> >> goto err_remove_cells
> >> }
> >>
> > Actually I'm now thinking we can remove this check at all - most users
> > never check the return values of notifier chain calls. This function
> > cannot fail in itself. What do you think?
> Thats even better, I was about to suggest the same on the fact that we
> should allow nvmem provider to register to be successful irrespective of
> the notifier callback failures.
>
> --srini
Right, I sent a different patch.
Bart
