On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:50:51 +0000 Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:38:52 -0800, Jesse Barnes jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
+int drm_mode_getplane(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
struct drm_file *file_priv)
+{
- struct drm_mode_get_plane *plane_resp = data;
- struct drm_mode_object *obj;
- struct drm_plane *plane;
- uint32_t __user *format_ptr;
- int ret = 0;
- if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
return -EINVAL;
- mutex_lock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
- obj = drm_mode_object_find(dev, plane_resp->plane_id,
DRM_MODE_OBJECT_PLANE);
- if (!obj) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
- }
We had begun to use ENOENT for failure to find the specified object to give a little variation to our error codes. Still not very widespread, but I think a good practice to encourage :)
Ok both good comments; fixed in the latest update.