Messages in this thread | | | From | "Luck, Tony" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when explicitly indicated by platform | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2023 16:32:35 +0000 |
| |
>> 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
| |