From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752546AbZETEtT (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2009 00:49:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750899AbZETEtL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2009 00:49:11 -0400 Received: from smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.65.186]:36486 "HELO smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750784AbZETEtL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2009 00:49:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=dT6HZfmUByfb63fmYAWtqy2hODwQx/rQEdwISb1G+641nnUKTVurHYLIRwuYTtlYOcsBxTnj0Bnhxd3bu06DVnIe56eeHMLTxTCJZg9wbzyHrMkiJwpBiKC9N2e2aUx9o4/xMasLZoAFQBDOdwKWkOS+zVXKjAOeJF5sjotxymU= ; X-YMail-OSG: lI9da5cVM1lDEtOqt0IthsuOMxX6Bj3rMUVv32n1HbdAUdoxxU1heiej5kHdLAv3vlrsuCly_VRrcMN1ASiVkjMXSzOu9dwxkOBRme.oGwSq_Pp1QSxzYjDAEsuGa8uDFN_x66FvwA9ZYff_I5Bv53dt X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc_spi: use EILSEQ for possible transmission errors Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:49:07 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Wolfgang =?iso-8859-1?q?M=FCes?= , Pierre Ossman , Andrew Morton , Mike Frysinger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200905141324.27908.wolfgang.mues@auerswald.de> <20090519112948.GB28564@console-pimps.org> In-Reply-To: <20090519112948.GB28564@console-pimps.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905192149.07778.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Matt Fleming wrote: > Hmm, always returning -EILSEQ is devious. What happens if we sent an > illegal command? The value of "value" is passed up to the callers via > cmd->error and so may eventually get printed in the pr_debug() call in > mmc_request_done(), line 86. True, but a pr_debug from mmc_spi could help that. A patch doing that would need to be less aggressive about ripping out the current fault-parsing logic, but it could continue reporting -EILSEQ to cope with the possible response mangling. > Whereas before the error would display EINVAL for an illegal command > now it'll display EILSEQ, which makes no sense. Seeing EILSEQ in my > log when really the error is EINVAL is gonna really confuse me. > > IMHO always assuming that command errors are caused by transmission > problems is not the right solution. Do you have a better solution to propose though? If Wolfgang is actually observing transmission errors there, I'm not sure a better one is to be had. Though I wonder what this would do for anyone trying SDIO over the mmc_spi driver. - Dave