Re: Extending Error Codes


piotr.ziecik@...
 

Hi.

I do not think that per-module error codes are good idea.

First, you cannot to this:
foo_error_t foo(void)
{
boo_error_t error = boo();
if (error != BOO_SUCCESS)
return error; // Here you are changing the meaning of the message. If the error will be propagated further the correct meaning will dissolve and the error code will become useless.
}

To solve the problem shown above you will need a translation:
foo_error_t foo(void)
{
boo_error_t error = boo();

// Waste of space here: copy-paste to each function using BOO and hard to maintain:
switch (error) {
case BOO_SUCCESS:
return FOO_SUCCESS;

case BOO_NOT_FOUND:
return FOO_NOT_FOUND;

default:
// Please maintain me 😊
__ASSERT(false);
}
}

IMHO the best solution is to extend the errno.h, but please remember that all errors defined there must be generic (reusable across different modules).

Best Regards,
Piotr Zięcik
Senior Firmware Engineer
M: +48 698 726 973



Nordic Semiconductor Poland sp. z o.o.
ul.Bratyslawska 1A, 31-201 Krakow, Poland
www.nordicsemi.com

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@lists.zephyrproject.org [mailto:devel@lists.zephyrproject.org] On Behalf Of Puzdrowski, Andrzej
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 3:53 PM
To: devel@lists.zephyrproject.org
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Extending Error Codes

I also see that error cods defined in <errno.h> are insufficient.
I think definition value-space for module specific codes are good idea in general. But I'm afraid we can go down the road in case we relaxed the line.
Also we can consider addition of generic codes to existing definitions (which is better idea).

Andrzej

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@lists.zephyrproject.org [mailto:devel@lists.zephyrproject.org] On Behalf Of laczenJMS
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:32 PM
To: devel@lists.zephyrproject.org
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Extending Error Codes

Hello Zephyr Developers,

I recently had a request to change the error codes in a zephyr module to use the standard supplied error codes. Doing so would reduce the descriptiveness of the error codes so I did not really like this.
However in my module I was using error codes (-) 1 to 10, and I think this was a bad idea. If someone needs to check the error code he/she might end up looking at errno.h and finding a completely different definition.

Would it not be a good idea to allow extending the standard error codes with module (subsystem) specific error codes that can be as descriptive as required by allowing modules to use error codes above a specific value. E.g. any module can use it's own error codes starting from 0x7F00 to 0x7FFF. This way it is possible to avoid overlap between standard errors and "user" errors.

What's your opinion ?

Kind regards,

Jehudi

Join devel@lists.zephyrproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.