Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] Add ioctls to enable and disable local controls on an instrument

Andy Shevchenko
2015-11-22T10:36:55Z

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > + if (rv < 0) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "simple usb_control_msg failed %d\n", rv);
>> > + goto exit;
>> > + } else if (rv != 1) {
>> > + dev_warn(dev, "simple usb_control_msg returned %d\n", rv);
>>
>> Actually here what king of results could be? 0? 2+? In all cases of
>> error you have to provide an error code.
>>
>
> We seem to be going round in circles here, last time you suggested to
> propagate the return value.

You didn't pay much attention to where I put my comment. You have few
branches depending on return value

1) negative, apparently an error code, should be propagated if nothing
specific to framework;
2) zero, what does it means?
3) one, seems the expected result when success, so, error code should be 0;
4) two, three, … non-negative numbers,see 2).

For my understanding 2) and 4) have to return what you initially had -EIO.

> The non-negative return is the number of bytes
> transferred which should be 1 unless there is some usb implementation
> flakiness happening. So I will go back to returning -EIO.

Yes, in *this* branch.

>
>> > + goto exit;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (buffer[0] != USBTMC_STATUS_SUCCESS) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "simple control status returned %x\n", buffer[0]);
>> > + rv = -EIO;
>> > + goto exit;
>> > + }
>> > + rv = 0;
>> > +
>> > + exit:
>> > + kfree(buffer);
>> > + return rv;
>> > +}

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko