On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28:33PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:12:45 MDT, Grant Likely said: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > > >> +#define EPROBE_DEFER 517 /* restart probe again after some time */ > > > > > > Can we really do this? > > > According to Arnd, yes this is okay. > > > > Isn't this some user/kernel api here? > > > > What's wrong with just "overloading" on top of an existing error code? > > > Surely one of the other 516 types could be used here, right? > > > overloading makes it really hard to find the users at a later date. > > Would proposing '#define EPROBE_DEFER EAGAIN' be acceptable to everybody? That > would allow overloading EAGAIN, but still make it easy to tell the usages > apart > if we need to separate them later...
Yes, please do that, it is what USB does for it's internal error code handling. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
