Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-25478-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:19:57 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, brgl@bgdev.pl,
	linus.walleij@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements
Message-ID: <20240114141957.GA99741@rigel>
References: <20240109140221.77725-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <ZaPrbi6GxqlfysWe@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZaPrbi6GxqlfysWe@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 04:10:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:02:16PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> > the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
> >
> > The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> > uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
> >
> > The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
>
> for patches starting from the second one.
>
> The first one I personally don't understand why, but I'm not a native speaker!
> I believe, it's correct, although the original version seems okay to me.
>

The problem isn't the language, unless you mean I'm explaining poorly, it
is the logic.  The original says "zero or negative value means error", but
in case of an error the kernel does not actually set the fd.  So if the
user sends a request containing a positive fd they might incorrectly infer
that the positive fd being returned implies success.

The new wording is that the returned fd is only valid on success.

And thanks for the review.

Cheers,
Kent.