On 02/15/2008 11:08 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:-static bool +static int ath5k_hw_setup_xr_tx_desc(struct ath5k_hw *ah, struct ath5k_desc *desc, unsigned int tx_rate1, u_int tx_tries1, u_int tx_rate2, u_int tx_tries2, unsigned int tx_rate3, u_int tx_tries3) @@ -3773,10 +3773,10 @@ ath5k_hw_setup_xr_tx_desc(struct ath5k_hw *ah, struct ath5k_desc *desc, #undef _XTX_TRIES - return true; + return 1; } - return false; + return 0; }Shouldn't we then treat 0 as OK?
Sorry, I don't understand you. There is return -EINVAL in the function above this too and we need to cope with another two states but the error: it is supported/it isn't. You mean to consider 0 as supported, -ENODEV/-EOPNOTSUPP as unsupported and the rest as error?
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
