lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe
    On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 04:59:31PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28:33PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:12:45 MDT, Grant Likely said:
    > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > >> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > >> +#define EPROBE_DEFER 517     /* restart probe again after some time */
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Can we really do this?
    > >>
    > >> > According to Arnd, yes this is okay.
    > >>
    > >> > >  Isn't this some user/kernel api here?
    > >>
    > >> > > What's wrong with just "overloading" on top of an existing error code?
    > >> > > Surely one of the other 516 types could be used here, right?
    > >>
    > >> > overloading makes it really hard to find the users at a later date.
    > >>
    > >> Would proposing '#define EPROBE_DEFER EAGAIN' be acceptable to everybody? That
    > >> would allow overloading EAGAIN, but still make it easy to tell the usages apart
    > >> if we need to separate them later...
    > >
    > > Yes, please do that, it is what USB does for it's internal error code
    > > handling.
    >
    > Really? When we've only currently used approximately 2^9 of a 2^31
    > numberspace? I'm fine with making sure that the number doesn't show
    > up in the userspace headers, but it makes no sense to overload the
    > #defines. Particularly so in this case where it isn't feasible to
    > audit every driver to figure out what probe might possibly return. It
    > is well within the realm of possibility that existing drivers are
    > already returning -EAGAIN.

    I doubt they are, but you are right, it's really hard to tell.

    > Besides; linux/errno.h *already* has linux-internal error codes that
    > do not get exported out to userspace. There is an #ifdef __KERNEL__
    > block around ERESTARTSYS through EIOCBRETRY which is filtered out when
    > exporting headers. I can't see any possible reason why we wouldn't
    > add Linux internal error codes here.

    As long as it stays internal, that's fine, I was worried that this would
    be exported to userspace.

    Alan, still object to this?

    greg k-h
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-10 03:09    [W:4.254 / U:0.600 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site