On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 21:24 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017, at 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 14:10 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > wrote:
> > > > While here, print negative error without changing a sign as it
> > > > is a
> > > > common pattern in the kernel.
> > >
> > > A separate patch for this would be better: it would be easier to
> > > actually check that no functional changes crept in by mistake.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense to me. It would touch same lines of code I do
> > already here and it's only one place, see below.
>
> I had to go line-by-line looking for the darn thing, instead of just
> compiling before-and-after and checking for an unchanged object file.
>
> > > > rc = fan_set_enable();
> > > > if (rc < 0) {
> > > > - pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling
> > > > fan,
> > > > "
> > > > - "will try again later...\n", -rc);
> > > > + pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling
> > > > fan,
> > > > will try again later...\n",
> > > > + rc);
>
> Yeah. This one. I don't have a problem with this change at all (I
> acked
> it), but it took some effort to find the nail in the hailstack.
Okay, what I'm going to do is:
1) drop patch 1 for now;
2) split patch 2 into two patches (and append your Ack on both);
3) push to our testing branch (I can send v2 if we need one more round
of review).
Tell me if there is any objection.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
ibm-acpi-devel mailing list
ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
