On (04/03/18 13:52), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-04-03 10:12:37, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/02/18 17:15), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I have never seen the error code in this form.
> > >
> > > We have limited space to print it and error numbers currently can be up
> > > to 0xfff (4095). So, I have no better idea how to squeeze them while
> > > thinking that "(efault)" is much harder to parse in case of error
> >
> > 'efault' looks to me like a misspelled 'default', for some reason.
>
> I wonder if (-efault) would help a bit.
Dunno. If the pointer is invalid and -EFAULTS then I guess we are not
leaking anything critical and may be can just print it out. May be I'm
wrong.
-ss
