On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:26:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Hans Verkuil [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 14/07/17 11:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

@@ -201,8 +202,9 @@ static int cx18_g_fmt_sliced_vbi_cap(struct file *file, void *fh,
       * digitizer/slicer.  Note, cx18_av_vbi() wipes the passed in
       * fmt->fmt.sliced under valid calling conditions
       */
-     if (v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced))
-             return -EINVAL;
+     ret = v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced);
+     if (ret)
+             return ret;

Please keep the -EINVAL here. I can't be 100% certain that returning 'ret' wouldn't
break something.

I think Dan was recommending the opposite here, if I understood you
both correctly:
he said we should propagate the error code unless we know it's wrong, while you
want to keep the current behavior to avoid introducing changes ;-)

I don't know the subsystem rules at all, so don't listen to me.

regards,
dan carpenter