Re: [PATCH 0/6] Return -ENODEV instead of -EFAULT on module-get failure

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:13:15 +0200,
Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> 
> On 7/6/2026 2:31 PM, Bui Duc Phuc wrote:
> 
> >> Now, there is a benefit of having a different error code in
> >> try_module_get() case: easier to find the offending bit when viewing
> >> logs.  All the functions in the area have rather low log-coverage so
> >> distinct error codes help.
> >> 
> >> Regardless, as you mentioned, -EFAULT isn't exactly the right return
> >> code either so the direction of the patchset is good.
> > 
> > Should I also add dev_err() at these paths, or is the distinct error
> > code enough for now?
> Nah, typically I prefer not to mix the changes, let them remain
> atomic. Distinct error code is enough.
> 
> In regard to the specific constant, I'd ask Takashi and Jaroslav
> what's their view on the subject.  Perhaps -EPERM or -ENOENT are good
> candidates.

A quick grep showed the statics like:
     85 ENODEV
     41 EINVAL
     17 EBUSY
     16 EFAULT
     14 ENOENT
     10 EPROBE
      8 EIO
      6 ENXIO
      3 EPROTONOSUPPORT
      3 EAGAIN
      3 EACCES
      2 EXPORT
      2 EPERM
      2 ENOLCK
      1 EPROTO
      1 EOPNOTSUPP
      1 ENOSYS
      1 ENOPROTOOPT
      1 EAFNOSUPPORT

So -ENODEV looks fine.


thanks,

Takashi