On 4/18/06, Takashi Iwai <[email protected]> wrote:
> > + if ((err = snd_mpu401_uart_cmd(mpu, MPU401_RESET, 1))) {
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> IMO, -EFAULT isn't a good choice for this kind of error.
What would you suggest?
> > if (mpu->open_output && (err = mpu->open_output(mpu)) < 0)
> > return err;
> > if (! test_bit(MPU401_MODE_BIT_INPUT, &mpu->mode)) {
> > - snd_mpu401_uart_cmd(mpu, MPU401_RESET, 1);
> > - snd_mpu401_uart_cmd(mpu, MPU401_ENTER_UART, 1);
> > + if ((err = snd_mpu401_uart_cmd(mpu, MPU401_RESET, 1)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + if ((err = snd_mpu401_uart_cmd(mpu, MPU401_ENTER_UART, 1)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> Missing close in the error path?
I'll respin the patch later, but first, what should I return on open
when the underlying hardware is not there?
Jon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]