On Sunday, August 22, 2021 2:39:34 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 03:10:56PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:

quoted

On 8/22/21 1:59 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:

quoted

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:09:29 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

So, it's up to the callers to test if (!_rtw_read*()) and then act
accordingly. If they get 0 they should know how to handle the errors.

Yes, but _rtw_read*() == 0 indicates 2 states:
	1. Error on transfer side
	2. Actual register value is 0

That's not a good design, it should be fixed.  Note there is the new
usb_control_msg_recv() function which should probably be used instead
here, to prevent this problem from happening.

I think that no functions should return 0 for signaling FAILURE. If I'm not 
wrong, the kernel quite always prefers to return 0 on SUCCESS and <0 on 
FAILURE. Why don't you just fix this?

quoted

quoted

In summation. if anything should be changed, it is the code of the 

callers of

quoted

quoted

_rtw_read*() if you find out they they don't properly handle the 

returning

quoted

quoted

values of this function. You should find every place where _rtw_read*() 

are

quoted

quoted

called and figure out if the returns are properly checked and handled; 

if not,

quoted

quoted

make some change only there.

Larry, Philip, where are you? Am I missing something?

Relax, there is no need to get jumpy, people do not have to respond
instantly to emails here.  Especially when it is not their job to do so.

I should have placed a big smile at the end of the phrase. I was just kidding 
while trying to get their attention. I know there is no hurry and that no one 
has any obligation of this kind. Again, just kidding :)

Thanks,

Fabio

greg k-h