On 05/10/15 15:24, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>
>>> But I am not really sure where you are seeing the bug (mapping to
>>> -EPERM) in this case? I think the only caller of hiddev_connect()
>>> should be hid_connect(), and the only thing that guy cares abou
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> > But I am not really sure where you are seeing the bug (mapping to
> > -EPERM) in this case? I think the only caller of hiddev_connect()
> > should be hid_connect(), and the only thing that guy cares about
> > whether individual callbacks succee
On 30/09/15 20:40, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>
>> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
>> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
>> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error con
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
Generally I agree that the more spec
The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warning:
hiddev_connect() warn: returnin
On 30/09/15 11:04, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:56:26AM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>> On 30/09/15 10:52, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>>> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
>>> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:56:26AM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> On 30/09/15 10:52, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> > The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
> > that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
> > the caller will get a -EPERM
On 30/09/15 10:52, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify
> that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated,
> the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
>
> Also, the smatch tool complains wit