On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 11:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We know "ret" is zero here. No need to check again. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Dan with the latest bunch of patches I just pushed and that Dave accepted, the code changes which directly affect your patch to leaves your patch only changing the return statement from: return ret; to return 0; but with the recent change in the code, the ret value can be something other than 0 so your patch does not appear to be needed any longer. Can you double check my findings by taking a look at David Miller's latest net-next tree to verify please? Cheers, Jeff
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
