On Wednesday 29 September 2010 15:10:56 Landry Breuil wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:53:33PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > this reads fine and works fine for me > > > > although i don't really agree with all this return () and comment > > changing.. if everyone did that there would be tons of unnecessary > > changes, the existing style is fine... but anyway, meh, the diff works > > Speaking of that... > > > > - return (10); > > > + return 1; > > is this really intended or correct ? > > Landry
Looks like it was intended and is correct. pmsi(4) used to have a higher priority over pms(4) when probing for the appropriate device driver but that's no longer necessary now that pmsi(4) is gone. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
