On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 05:47:09PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > That's definitely true. When writing this patch I looked for usages > similar to what you describe in the actual code of the driver, but > didn't see anything that should cause a problem. The driver has a > pretty sizable set of error codes, but AFAICT none of them are really > used as anything more than a negative number passed up the call chain. > Grepping for "E1000_ERR_*" in drivers/net/e1000 doesn't seem to show > any usages in any comparison statements. Finding all of the points in > the driver where error codes cross over into generic codebase and > doing errno re-mapping there seemed like a more invasive/complicated > alternative, so I did go for it. > > That's how my thinking went, anyway. I can re-do the patch if we > decide that maintaining unique ID for each E1000_ERR_* code is > desired. Yeah, I also did a few quick greps through the code, and didn't find any such usages. I also noticed that sometimes the e1000 driver returns -EIO etc. directly instead of the E1000_ERR_* codes. I don't think your patch needs a respin though, it was only a small nitpick from my side, all of that can still be cleaned up in additional patches, if someone wants to do it. ;-) - Roland -- Roland Hieber | r.hieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Pengutronix e.K. | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5086 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
