From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:12:37 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe In-Reply-To: <32004.1318030113@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1317963790-29426-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <1317963790-29426-2-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <20111007064349.GD27508@kroah.com> <32004.1318030113@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20111008001237.GA30551@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28:33PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:12:45 MDT, Grant Likely said: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > > >> +#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. > > Would proposing '#define EPROBE_DEFER EAGAIN' be acceptable to everybody? That > would allow overloading EAGAIN, but still make it easy to tell the usages apart > if we need to separate them later... Yes, please do that, it is what USB does for it's internal error code handling. greg k-h