* [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll()
@ 2011-05-24 10:51 Nicolas Kaiser
2011-05-24 12:34 ` Richard Cochran
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Kaiser @ 2011-05-24 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: Richard Cochran, linux-kernel
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Kaiser <nikai@nikai.net>
---
It looks to me like -ENODEV might not be a good return value
in poll(). Would POLLERR be the correct one in this case?
kernel/time/posix-clock.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
index c340ca6..2424d3f 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static unsigned int posix_clock_poll(struct file *fp, poll_table *wait)
int result = 0;
if (!clk)
- return -ENODEV;
+ return POLLERR;
if (clk->ops.poll)
result = clk->ops.poll(clk, fp, wait);
--
1.7.5.rc3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll()
2011-05-24 10:51 [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll() Nicolas Kaiser
@ 2011-05-24 12:34 ` Richard Cochran
2011-05-24 14:08 ` Nicolas Kaiser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Cochran @ 2011-05-24 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Kaiser; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Richard Cochran, linux-kernel
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:51:47PM +0200, Nicolas Kaiser wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Kaiser <nikai@nikai.net>
> ---
> It looks to me like -ENODEV might not be a good return value
> in poll(). Would POLLERR be the correct one in this case?
>
> kernel/time/posix-clock.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> index c340ca6..2424d3f 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static unsigned int posix_clock_poll(struct file *fp, poll_table *wait)
> int result = 0;
>
> if (!clk)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + return POLLERR;
The condition (!clk) is only satisfied when 'zombie' is set,
indicating that the dynamic clock has disappeared. That is why the
file operations uniformly return ENODEV. So, I think it makes sense
the way that it is.
In addition, man 2 poll says,
POLLERR
Error condition (output only).
so using that error code would be misleading, IMHO.
Thanks,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll()
2011-05-24 12:34 ` Richard Cochran
@ 2011-05-24 14:08 ` Nicolas Kaiser
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Kaiser @ 2011-05-24 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Cochran; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel
* Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:51:47PM +0200, Nicolas Kaiser wrote:
> > It looks to me like -ENODEV might not be a good return value
> > in poll(). Would POLLERR be the correct one in this case?
> The condition (!clk) is only satisfied when 'zombie' is set,
> indicating that the dynamic clock has disappeared. That is why the
> file operations uniformly return ENODEV. So, I think it makes sense
> the way that it is.
>
> In addition, man 2 poll says,
>
> POLLERR
> Error condition (output only).
>
> so using that error code would be misleading, IMHO.
I see. Sorry for the noise.
Best regards,
Nicolas Kaiser
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-24 14:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-24 10:51 [PATCH] posix clocks: correct error value in posix_clock_poll() Nicolas Kaiser
2011-05-24 12:34 ` Richard Cochran
2011-05-24 14:08 ` Nicolas Kaiser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox