[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5763C0BE.8090900@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:19:58 +0200
From: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 31/63] clocksource/drivers/tango_xtal: Convert init
function to return error
On 16/06/2016 23:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The init functions do not return any error. They behave as the following:
>
> - panic, thus leading to a kernel crash while another timer may work and
> make the system boot up correctly
>
> or
>
> - print an error and let the caller unaware if the state of the system
>
> Change that by converting the init functions to return an error conforming
> to the CLOCKSOURCE_OF_RET prototype.
>
> Proper error handling (rollback, errno value) will be changed later case
> by case, thus this change just return back an error or success in the init
> function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/clocksource/sun4i_timer.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
NACK ;-)
The subject specifies tango_xtal, but the patch changes sun4i_timer.
(Looks like all patches in the series are off by one.)
And I see you've already acknowledged the issue an hour ago.
The actual patch for tango_xtal is [PATCH V2 32/63] clocksource/drivers/tegra20_timer
BTW, I wasn't CCed on the tango_xtal patch.
I suppose I forgot to add the appropriate line in MAINTAINERS?
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists