On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:26:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On 14/07/17 11:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> @@ -201,8 +202,9 @@ static int cx18_g_fmt_sliced_vbi_cap(struct file > >> *file, void *fh, > >> * digitizer/slicer. Note, cx18_av_vbi() wipes the passed in > >> * fmt->fmt.sliced under valid calling conditions > >> */ > >> - if (v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced)) > >> - return -EINVAL; > >> + ret = v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, > >> &fmt->fmt.sliced); > >> + if (ret) > >> + return ret; > > > > Please keep the -EINVAL here. I can't be 100% certain that returning 'ret' > > wouldn't > > break something. > > I think Dan was recommending the opposite here, if I understood you > both correctly: > he said we should propagate the error code unless we know it's wrong, while > you > want to keep the current behavior to avoid introducing changes ;-) >
I don't know the subsystem rules at all, so don't listen to me. regards, dan carpenter
