Sorry for the delay, got stuck with other things...
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 09:14:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > return value. The function can work
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 09:10:18AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > never do something
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> never do something different based on this.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: Ingo Molnar
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> never do something different based on this.
So I've seen you do a fair number of these
When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
never do something different based on this.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Will Deacon
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
---
kernel/locking/qspinlo
5 matches
Mail list logo
