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

Dan Carpenter
2012-02-10T07:15:34Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1142 bytes --]

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

regards,
dan carpenter

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]