On 12 May 2014 15:49, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Does that handle_return_value() mean that you sprinkle WARN_ONs all
> over the place?
Yeah, probably it should have been done this way:
- dev->set_mode(mode, dev);
+ if (dev->set_dev_mode) {
+ int ret = dev->set_dev_mode(mode, dev);
+
+ /* Currently available modes are not expected to fail */
+ if (WARN_ON(ret))
+ return ret;
+ } else {
+ dev->set_mode(mode, dev);
+ }
+
My fault and a big one :(
> Does it mean, that you change the return value
> semantics of functions which happen to call clock_events_set_mode()
> just because it now has a return value?
I didn't do it, probably yet another bad/confusing log by me :(
>> All other are updated to return error codes.
When I read it now, I can see why it was confusing :(.
What I meant was:
"routines which had capability to return errors would now return them on
failure of clockevents_set_mode() as well.."
But even that isn't required and handling should be added only to callers
of clockevents_set_mode() which are issuing ONESHOT_STOPPED ..
> Find someone competent who reviews your patches, deals with you and
> when they make sense sends them to me.
I will make sure to get some Reviewed-by/Signed-off-by for my patches
from someone with good understanding of these frameworks before
sending them out again..
Sorry for the noise :(
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
