Re: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:
>>
>> Add new error value so that drivers can request deferred probe
>> from drivercore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: G, Manjunath Kondaiah <manjugk@xxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dilan Lee <dilee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>>  include/linux/errno.h |    1 +
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/errno.h b/include/linux/errno.h
>> index 4668583..83d8fcf 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/errno.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/errno.h
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>>  #define ERESTARTNOHAND       514     /* restart if no handler.. */
>>  #define ENOIOCTLCMD  515     /* No ioctl command */
>>  #define ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK 516 /* restart by calling sys_restart_syscall */
>> +#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.

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