On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 16:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > This is broken code which clearly hasn't been tested. Wat??? Oh, I think I see what you mean. When I said tested, I meant that the entries appear in sysfs instead of proc, not that they pass data anywhere or work with s-Par correctly. I just tested that my patch does what it said it does, which is moving the entries. That particular line I believe generated an error in checkpatch.pl when I removed the second field and split the single entry into two. It says that the kstrto*() functions are preferred for single parameters over sscanf(). > I don't understand how that is ok? It's not, which is why they needed to be fixed too. Anyway, I split the patch into two separate patches, one to remove the proc code, and another to add completely new sysfs functions with corrected code from the start. -- Ben Romer | Software Engineer | Virtual Systems Development Unisys Corporation | 2476 Swedesford Rd | Malvern, PA 19355 | 610-648-7140 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
