[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150408113832.GH10964@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:38:32 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <willy@...a-x.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and
parport_register_driver
1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
patches doesn't work.
2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
we would bail. Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem
like it will simplify the driver code very much. But I can also see
your point. Hm...
Minor comment: No need to preserve the error code if there are lots
which we miss. We may as well hard code an error code. But that's a
minor thing. Does this actually simplify the driver code? That's the
more important thing.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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