On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>
> The error variable in acpi_dev_run_wake() is not really used, so
> remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ linux/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -282,7 +282,6 @@ static int acpi_dev_run_wake(struct devi
> {
> struct acpi_device *dev;
> acpi_handle handle;
> - int error = -ENODEV;
>
> if (!device_run_wake(phys_dev))
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -302,7 +301,7 @@ static int acpi_dev_run_wake(struct devi
> acpi_disable_wakeup_device_power(dev);
> }
>
> - return error;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static void acpi_pci_propagate_run_wake(struct pci_bus *bus, bool enable)
This looks like the right thing to do, but the current changelog
suggests that we're just removing unused code.
But in fact, we'll now return 0 (success) when we used to return
-ENODEV, so the behavior of the callers will change (probably fixing
some bugs). Do you want to mention that in the changelog as well?
I'm assuming this is for the 3.2 merge window, since it doesn't look
like a regression fix.
Bjorn
--
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
