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

Rasesh Mody
2012-02-10T22:38:38Z

>From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@oracle.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:16 PM
>
>On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 05:53:20PM -0800, Rasesh Mody wrote:
>>
>> 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 email.
>
>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.

I would like to take back my prior statement, we can return 0 from the bnad_get_flash_partition_by_offset on error. Flash partition 1 and not 0 is actually optrom, so there will be no need to handle zero returns differently. Zero returns should be treated as an error and reported as -EFAULTS as its being done in current implementation. Apologies for the confusion.

Regards,
Rasesh