lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when explicitly indicated by platform
Date
>> I don't see how reporting -EBUSY for the "Unknown Failure" case is
>> actually better.
>
> Tony, did you misunderstand this patch?
>
> The original code report -EBUSY for both "Unknown Failure" and
> "Invalid Access" cases.

I mixed up what was already in the kernel with what the patch was changing.

> This patch intends to report -EINVAL for "Invalid Access" case
> and keeps reporting -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case unchanged.
> Although -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case is not a good choice.
> Will -EIO for "Unknown failure" case be better?

Is this for some real use case?

Do you have a BIOS EINJ implementation that is returning these different codes?

What will the user do differently if they see these different error strings?

# echo 1 > error_inject
... different error messages here ...

-Tony


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:09    [W:0.436 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site