From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops V2 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20181128074117.GA21126@lst.de> References: <20181122140320.24080-1-hch@lst.de> <20181122170715.GI30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <11829e3c-7302-f821-cf5c-863e5267a17b@arm.com> <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux@armlinux.org.uk, Linux List Kernel Mailing , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:55:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No, the big immediate benefit of allowing "return -EINVAL" etc is > > simply legibility and error avoidance. > > Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error > instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine, > although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to > return different errors. Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this series. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35246 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727230AbeK1SmB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:42:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:17 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops V2 Message-ID: <20181128074117.GA21126@lst.de> References: <20181122140320.24080-1-hch@lst.de> <20181122170715.GI30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <11829e3c-7302-f821-cf5c-863e5267a17b@arm.com> <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux@armlinux.org.uk, Linux List Kernel Mailing , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20181128074117.a7XFz1AX5xGGW1wTGG-xXIP3TfFlpT9b1vhHxeKlQnM@z> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:55:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No, the big immediate benefit of allowing "return -EINVAL" etc is > > simply legibility and error avoidance. > > Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error > instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine, > although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to > return different errors. Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this series.