From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757261AbbIVGwr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 02:52:47 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:33471 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757189AbbIVGwn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 02:52:43 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:22:36 +0530
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com>,
        driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
        Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: fix returned errno code in
 dgap_parsefile()
Message-ID: <20150922065236.GB5526@sudip-pc>
References: <1442882376-23634-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com>
 <20150922045238.GA5526@sudip-pc>
 <5600F773.5040208@osg.samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5600F773.5040208@osg.samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:38:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Sudip,
> 
> On 09/22/2015 06:52 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:39:36AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
> >> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
> >> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
> > Just a little doubt. caller means the function which is calling this
> > dgap_parsefile() or you meant the user?
<snip>
> 
> But I believe the patch and what the commit message says is true regardless
> of the fact that the caller is just checking for != 0. dgap_firmware_load()
> stills gets a wrong error condition whether it's checking it or not.
Yes. I just had a doubt what you meant by caller. If user then I would
have said that "patch is correct but commit message is not". :)

regards
sudip