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

[Cezary Rojewski]

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.