On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 05:20:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:38:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > 1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the > > patches doesn't work. > yes, if the first patch is reverted for any reason all the others need > to be reverted also. so then everything in one single patch? The problem is that patch 1/1 breaks the build. The rule is that we should be able to apply part of a patch series and nothing breaks. If we apply the patch series out of order than things break that's our problem, yes. But if we apply only 1/1 and it breaks, that's a problem with the series. > > > > 2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or > > we would bail. Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem > > like it will simplify the driver code very much. But I can also see > > your point. Hm... My other issue with this patch series which is related to #2 is that it's not clear that anyone is checking the return value and doing correct things with it. Hopefully, when we use the attach_ret() approach then it will be more clear if/how the return value is useful. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
