[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130111205939.GD13897@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:59:39 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing0307@...il.com>,
Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/16] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects from
probing ACPI drivers
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:37:59 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:31:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > Subject: ACPI / scan: Fix check of device_attach() return value.
> > >
> > > Since device_attach() returns 1 on success and 0 on failure,
> > > the check against its return value in acpi_bus_device_attach()
> > > should be reveresed. Make it so.
> >
> > Not sure if it matters but it returns 0 if no device was bound to a driver
> > and -ENODEV in case of error. If we only want to terminate in case of
> > error, following might be better.
> >
> > } else if (device_attach(&device->dev) < 0) {
>
> Yes, this check will be better.
>
> Which means that the patch is actually yours, so I've just added the changelog. :-)
>
Thanks! (and I've tested this, it works ;-))
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists