On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:51 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > > 2) Please note that if the callback
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:51 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
2) Please note that if the callback always
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero,
> > > driver_for_each_device() can still return
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero,
> > driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL, but only if it was
> > provided a NULL "drv" (a struct
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero,
driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL, but only if it was
provided a NULL drv (a struct
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero,
driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Greg,
>
> 0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from
> driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree?
No.
> 1) Commit 4a7fb6363f ("add __must_check to device management code")
> added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(),
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Greg,
0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from
driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree?
No.
1) Commit 4a7fb6363f (add __must_check to device management code)
added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years
Greg,
0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from
driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree?
1) Commit 4a7fb6363f ("add __must_check to device management code")
added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years ago. But of
the seventeen current users of that function just one
Greg,
0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from
driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree?
1) Commit 4a7fb6363f (add __must_check to device management code)
added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years ago. But of
the seventeen current users of that function just one
10 matches
Mail list logo