linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/23] PCI: rescan with bus or bridge using callback method too

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVTOM=GUDusgmV31mbyBOuNKsxnm+v1cx-Liq=CNUWLfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:05:35 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/23] PCI: rescan with bus or bridge using callback
 method too

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Why did you just repeat my proposal, changing "err" to "ret"?  I
> missed the point you're trying to make.  The name "err" gives an
> important clue that device_schedule_callback() returns 0 or errno.
> That's essential to understanding the code.
>
> Your original patch has one "return."  Mine proposal has three.  All
> that means is that the reader of your patch has to manage more stuff
> in her head to understand the code.  That's not a benefit!

ok, can we have separated patch to fix them all?

Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/