Re: [PATCH 2/4] arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c: Add missing IS_ERR test
From: walter harms
Date: Tue Jan 25 2011 - 06:13:00 EST
Am 25.01.2011 11:43, schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:33:16AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>> Would it be more easy to return NULL in the error case of clk_get() instead
>> of ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) ?
>> So the default could be return NULL and an architecture depending solution
>> replacing that.
> That's not how the API is defined. The API defines error-pointers to be
> errors, everything should be considered valid. Please don't go down the
> route of doing something architecturally different from that.
> What if, say, you couldn't return the struct clk because maybe it could
> only be controlled by one user? Returning an EBUSY error pointer would
> indicate this condition. What if the module providing the struct clk
> hasn't finished initializing - that's another reason for EBUSY rather
> than ENOENT.
> Error codes are useful to describe why something failed. NULL pointers
> can't do that.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> clk_get() is defined per-architecture, sometimes it is NULL only.
So these is a bug ? They should return -ENOENT ?
The interessting question is: what to do with an error ?
Obviously some architecture can live with NULL, so it is not an critical
error. An the patch shows a code that is simply a return, not even the
user is informed that something did not work as expected.
>From that point of view i would like question if it is useful to have
a "detailed" error instead of just returning NULL.
just my 2 cents,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/