From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:28:33 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:12:45 MDT." References: <1317963790-29426-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <1317963790-29426-2-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <20111007064349.GD27508@kroah.com> Message-ID: <32004.1318030113@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: