Re: [PATCH for-5.2 v2 3/9] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce ENODEV define and remove guards of others

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 06/08/2020 15.27, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 8/6/20 12:53 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Remove the "#ifndef E..." guards from the defines here - the header
>> guard S390_CCW_H at the top of the file should avoid double definition,
>> and if the error code is defined in a different file already, we're in
>> trouble anyway, then it's better to see the error at compile time instead
>> of hunting weird behavior during runtime later.
>> Also define ENODEV - we will use this in a later patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> 
> Would it make sense to use the errno.h numbers for the defines?

Which one? From Linux? From Windows? From BSD? ... I think it's likely
best if we keep them separate to avoid confusion.

 Thomas


> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> 
>> ---
>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-ccw.h | 6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-ccw.h b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-ccw.h
>> index 36b884cced..dbc4c64851 100644
>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-ccw.h
>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-ccw.h
>> @@ -27,12 +27,10 @@ typedef unsigned long long __u64;
>>  #define false 0
>>  #define PAGE_SIZE 4096
>>  
>> -#ifndef EIO
>>  #define EIO     1
>> -#endif
>> -#ifndef EBUSY
>>  #define EBUSY   2
>> -#endif
>> +#define ENODEV  3
>> +
>>  #ifndef NULL
>>  #define NULL    0
>>  #endif
>>
> 
>