On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote:
> On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:41, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > + pr_info("no patching in progress. Force not allowed\n");
>
> proposing smoother wording and information sharing
> pr_info("no patching in progress, forced action (%d) ineffective", val);
That is better. Thanks.
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + switch (val) {
>
> I felt strong confusion for a while looking at a function what does nothing. A
> comment that this is intentionally an empty shell, at this stage, would be
> welcome.
Yes, I wanted to keep that sysfs glue separate from both implementations
to make the review easier. Despite the ugly outcome. And it is confusing.
Comment sounds good.
Thanks,
Miroslav
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return count;
> > +}
