Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions

[Chander Kashyap]

On 14 May 2014 19:57, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 06:08 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 14 May 2014 15:01, Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> say we do at this point:
>>>> if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
>>>>   dev_err(dev, "%s: attempt to add duplicate OPP entry (rate=%ld)\n",
>>>> __func__, new_opp->rate)
>>>>    kfree(new_opp);
>>>>     return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes this is more cleaner.
>>> But instead of dev_err,  we should use dev_warn and secondly
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>> return 0 rather than EINVAL, as there are independent users for this function
>>
>> Why? We should actually use EEXIST here instead of EINVAL though..
>>
> Yep -EEXIST is the right return value here. As Viresh indicated,
> reporting back 0 when the requested operation actually was not
> performed is wrong. Caller is supposed to know when it makes an error
> - hiding it is not correct.
>

Then in that case the caller must take care for two type of errors:
-EEXIST and -ENOMEM

> --
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon



-- 
with warm regards,
Chander Kashyap
--
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/