From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1423148AbcBQT1S (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:27:18 -0500
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:56657 "EHLO
	mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030286AbcBQT1R (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:27:17 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,462,1449529200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="203549576"
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:27:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] goldfish: Return proper error code
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602171419510.4547@hadrien>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602171426250.4547@hadrien>
References: <20160217172329.GA9026@amitoj-Inspiron-3542> <20160217184126.59c0ae36@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602171419510.4547@hadrien>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Julia Lawall wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:53:29 +0530
> > Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This change has been made with the goal that kernel functions should
> > > return something more descriptive than -1 on failure.
> > >
> > > Change the return value on valid_batchbuffer_addr() failure from -1
> > > to -EINVAL.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@gmail.com>
> >
> > NAK. It's not user visible, it's a piece of code that has a pile of other
> > more important fixes needed first, and it's also as far as possible kept
> > aligned with the Android upstream.
> >
> > If it were some random otherwise unchanging bit of code then it might
> > just about make sense but in this case no - especially when you only
> > change one of the two returns of -1 !
>
> The other has been chahged already in a patch in the staging tree.  Maybe
> it's not in linux-next yet?

It's there too: 1d427da1d7f9f81c4f5439c9610683d3cb9c1921

julia