Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp832166imu; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:42:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/U4R5u53oB07r2lvs3etKVzxVXHCKu1VWnp4l9POGbPC3iF029X74Lql4c35pxjttU3ZL+9 X-Received: by 2002:a63:a30a:: with SMTP id s10mr30267975pge.234.1543390930447; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:42:10 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543390930; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=x67LC7UUaionIqgyK66kHOLku4HBs5yUy57dwJRsf+UIVWnozRrvgosGG5vfApJrtN zYk55nH389whlmEh59TGbKqFsi2gI8D08iyHrew3Nf3u2Y6dUs23ldxLitrdT6b9RQ02 GnKD9AJYbvof9LZFCMfenqFAn0p/vKh5sDpzqwQnk8OtvkcTVxaNNb5I8mJYBk7f3u/H sMw6UfR7uVrP24KazTZFi7D4jaEca0ULYGDk6PFgpfLlWz0nTVvE2C3fClfMRo4LwfIt Ga1XSAD/2zlHRxnXFJv2TL0lAuPI7YjK96M14nqB6I7s7JZIUflVMbMB7wNAY3Jy9qzc dpqg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=LaiHJaigctptOhFXE5KBGs3qwpq8pprUM6Z5Xz6TaBc=; b=IO0fGO0ZHnUzPyMf7sMVFeQpYYId8xI3k3XWzZapxfWrjkRuoR1nDE6WWpASa2bLpx 7h0B3F14/oNoTrFleQ7AYG8uGY1F6KKzPATLMuBmAqN43gVxFQjnmYd3j1kLqYvKVKrQ ns8vdklg2HuB1WTgiJtP5NKf5KxsgL/Ouajni3ymVIfuOeC+K4tsPk64cEG6XYnq8b3P 6pYQOVdYjiROEDD5igPTDoj3oGgnABRBj7QNvmngLXo3TS54yFBrQaY2xvPE5SHNw/FK 3kzWcBh7CliKEsPnYUiHGBYMZS4PhBF8ndJcwAnUYTKNHcX2ENJaxup72T3uwY0Z033R 9tyw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a11si7055540pln.78.2018.11.27.23.41.55; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727673AbeK1SmB (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:42:01 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35246 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727230AbeK1SmB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:42:01 -0500 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id CAEDA68B02; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:17 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux@armlinux.org.uk, Linux List Kernel Mailing , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops V2 Message-ID: <20181128074117.GA21126@lst.de> References: <20181122140320.24080-1-hch@lst.de> <20181122170715.GI30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <11829e3c-7302-f821-cf5c-863e5267a17b@arm.com> <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:55:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No, the big immediate benefit of allowing "return -EINVAL" etc is > > simply legibility and error avoidance. > > Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error > instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine, > although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to > return different errors. Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this series.