Re: [patch] bna: fix error handling of bnad_get_flash_partition_by_offset()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 05:53:20PM -0800, Rasesh Mody wrote:
> >From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:50 AM
> >
> >The current error handling doesn't work because we flash_part is a u32
> >so the checks for negative error codes don't work.  I considered making
> >things signed but I don't know the hardware enough to say if that's a
> >problem.  Really, we don't use the error codes so just returning zero
> >for all problems is fine.
> Hi Dan,
> We can't return 0 from the bnad_get_flash_partition_by_offset() on
> error as the flash partition 0 is a optrom partition. Also we got
> comments to return proper Linux error codes as ethtool application
> expects so.

It's already treated as an error.  A return value of zero means the
user gets a return value of -EFAULT.  I'm slightly confused by your

My patch was already merged into git.  Can you just send a patch
which does what you want?  I don't know the subsystem well enough to
say how you want zero returns to be handled if the original code was
not correct.

dan carpenter

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]     [Free Dating]

Add to Google Powered by Linux