Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-25481-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240109140221.77725-1-warthog618@gmail.com> <ZaPrbi6GxqlfysWe@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240114141957.GA99741@rigel>
In-Reply-To: <20240114141957.GA99741@rigel>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 16:30:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcdE-DfoSLOYyg5RdouBCs1QJ3AO6Ru49P_84-vTKi4DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, brgl@bgdev.pl, linus.walleij@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 4:20=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> 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 s=
peaker!
> > 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", bu=
t
> 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 infe=
r
> that the positive fd being returned implies success.
>
> The new wording is that the returned fd is only valid on success.

Ah, thanks for elaboration, now I understand the issue. Okay, feel
free to extend the Rb to the first patch.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko