[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180109145010.GL17719@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:50:10 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: Fix phy_modify() semantic difference fallout
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses
> > > of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it
> > > return 0 on success seems like a better fix.
> >
> > I'd like to avoid that, because I don't want to have yet another
> > accessor that needs to be used for advertisment modification (where
> > we need to know if we changed any bits.)
> >
> > That's why this accessor returns the old value.
>
> Hi Russell
>
> where exactly is this use case? I've not found it yet.
>
> I can understand your argument. But how long it is going to take us to
> find all the breakage because the return value has changed meaning?
>
> The trade off is adding yet another accessor vs debugging and fixing
> the repercussions.
>
> I think i prefer not breaking existing code.
Please introduce a new accessor then.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists