Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> if (!ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> - int ret;
>
> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &acpi_dev->dev.kobj,
> + fn = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &acpi_dev->dev.kobj,
> "firmware_node");
> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&acpi_dev->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj,
> + pn = sysfs_create_link(&acpi_dev->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj,
> "physical_node");
> + if (fn) {
That new if-statement still needs indenting one more tab stop. It's indented
the same as the previous if-statement, but is actually in the body of that
previous if-statement.
The body of the second if-statement should be indented one tab beyond the if,
and else/else-if statements and the final closing brace should be indented
level with the if:
if (...) {
body;
} else if (...) {
body;
} else {
body;
}
so that they line up vertically.
> + dev_warn(dev, "dev:%p Failed to create firmware_node: %d\n",
> + acpi_dev, fn);
The "dev:%p " seems like it ought to be superfluous if you're using
dev_warn(), and certainly, returning the pointer isn't really useful, I
suspect.
However, at this point you have two device struct pointers: dev and
&acip_dev->dev, so printing them both is may be good. Perhaps something like:
+ dev_warn(&acpi_dev->dev,
+ "Failed to create firmware_node link to %s %s: %d\n",
+ dev_driver_string(dev), dev_name(dev), fn);
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
