[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180912154119.1fce639d@alans-desktop>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:41:19 +0100
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jaejoong Kim <climbbb.kim@...il.com>
Cc: linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] Change tty_port(standard)_install's return type
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:44:26 +0900
Jaejoong Kim <climbbb.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> Many drivers with tty use the tty_stand_install(). But, there is no
> need to handle the error, since it always returns 0.
And what happens if another change means it can fail again. It's just a
property of the current implementation that it can't. It used to fail.
This seems to be a ton of unneccessary churn that will end up just having
to be reversed again some day in the future.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists