Re: [RFC v6] rfkill: rewrite

Johannes Berg
2009-04-30T16:09:40Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:53 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> > Actually, I was going to clean this up, and then I noticed you're
> > wrong. :) Returning ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) is intentional, in the non-RFKILL
> > case. Imagine a driver like this:
>
> Well, that's confusing as all heck... document it, please?

Well, ok. I don't really think it's all that confusing since you don't
need to think about the non-RFKILL code, you can just write the code as
though rfkill was always enabled.

> I still think in
> that case, we'd be better off if rfkill_alloc always uses the ERR_PTR
> convention.

Umm, no, think again. If we do that, the driver won't do
if (!rf)
but
if (IS_ERR(rf))
and the advantage is lost.

This is exactly what debugfs does too.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]