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

Greg KH
2011-10-10T01:06:56Z

On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 04:59:31PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28:33PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@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 <greg@kroah.com> 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.
>
> Really? When we've only currently used approximately 2^9 of a 2^31
> numberspace? I'm fine with making sure that the number doesn't show
> up in the userspace headers, but it makes no sense to overload the
> #defines. Particularly so in this case where it isn't feasible to
> audit every driver to figure out what probe might possibly return. It
> is well within the realm of possibility that existing drivers are
> already returning -EAGAIN.

I doubt they are, but you are right, it's really hard to tell.

> Besides; linux/errno.h *already* has linux-internal error codes that
> do not get exported out to userspace. There is an #ifdef __KERNEL__
> block around ERESTARTSYS through EIOCBRETRY which is filtered out when
> exporting headers. I can't see any possible reason why we wouldn't
> add Linux internal error codes here.

As long as it stays internal, that's fine, I was worried that this would
be exported to userspace.

Alan, still object to this?

greg k-h