Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82766-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240206042408.224138-1-joychakr@google.com> <2024020647-submarine-lucid-ea7b@gregkh>
 <CAOSNQF3jk+85-P+NB-1w=nQwJr1BBO9OQuLbm6s8PiXrFMQdjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2024020637-handpick-pamphlet-bacb@gregkh> <CAOSNQF2_qy51Z01DKO1MB-d+K4EaXGDkof1T4pHNO10U_Hm0WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2024020734-curliness-licking-44c1@gregkh> <CAOSNQF2WKang6DpGoVztybkEbtL=Uhc5J-WLvyfRhT3MGWgiaA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOSNQF2WKang6DpGoVztybkEbtL=Uhc5J-WLvyfRhT3MGWgiaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:27:09 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOSNQF2d27vYTtWwoDY8ALHWo3+eTeBz7e=koNodphVVmeThMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvmem: rmem: Fix return value of rmem_read()
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, 
	Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, manugautam@google.com, 
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 8:33=E2=80=AFPM Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@google.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:04=E2=80=AFPM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 05:22:15PM +0530, Joy Chakraborty wrote:
> > > > > Userspace will see a false error with nvmem cell reads from
> > > > > nvmem_cell_attr_read() in current code, which should be fixed on
> > > > > returning 0 for success.
> > > >
> > > > So maybe fix this all up to allow the read to return the actual amo=
unt
> > > > read?  That feels more "correct" to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I change the behavior of the nvmem_reg_read_t callback to negative
> > > for error and number of bytes actually read for success then, other
> > > than the core driver I would also have to change all the
> > > nvmem-provider drivers.
> > > Is it okay to do so ?
> >
> > Sure, why not?  That seems like the correct fix to me, right?
>
> Sure, I can do that.
>
> Is it okay to change the if checks on the return code to "if (rc < 0)"
> instead of "if (rc)" as a fix for the immediate issue with how return
> value from rmem is handled which can be applied to older kernels.
> In a separate patch I can change the definition of nvmem_reg_read_t()
> to return ssize_t instead of int and make corresponding changes to
> nvmem-provider drivers.
>
> Does that sound okay ?

Hi Greg,

Sent a patch https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240219113149.2437990-2-joychakr@=
google.com/
to change the return type for read/write callbacks.
Do I mark that with the "Fixes:" tag as well ?
It affects a lot of files so might not be able to easily pick to an
older kernel when needed.

Thanks
Joy

> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Thanks
> Joy