Re: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe

Greg KH
2011-10-07T06:51:21Z

On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:
>
> Add new error value so that drivers can request deferred probe
> from drivercore.
>
> Signed-off-by: G, Manjunath Kondaiah <manjugk@ti.com>
> Reported-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> ---
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>
> Cc: Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> Cc: Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> include/linux/errno.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/errno.h b/include/linux/errno.h
> index 4668583..83d8fcf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/errno.h
> +++ b/include/linux/errno.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #define ERESTARTNOHAND 514 /* restart if no handler.. */
> #define ENOIOCTLCMD 515 /* No ioctl command */
> #define ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK 516 /* restart by calling sys_restart_syscall */
> +#define EPROBE_DEFER 517 /* restart probe again after some time */

Can we really do this? 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?

greg k-h