On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 05:39 -0400, Ocean He wrote:
> From: Ocean He <hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In the beginning of acpi_nfit_add, if fail to find NFIT table then
> should
> return -ENODEV, instead of 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ocean He <hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> index 7c47900..1790d7c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> @@ -3355,7 +3355,7 @@ static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_device
> *adev)
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> /* This is ok, we could have an nvdimm hotplugged
> later */
> dev_dbg(dev, "failed to find NFIT at startup\n");
> - return 0;
> + return -ENODEV;
Hm, the comment directly above this says this is ok..
Has this caused any problems in practice?
> }
>
> rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, acpi_nfit_put_table,
> tbl);
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
