On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 13:36 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:15:55PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 13:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > ...it's not clear to me that this change is an improvement - it'll make > > > the driver more fragile in the face of errors, I don't see a benefit in > > > refusing to register the variant for one bus if the other fails? > > > I tried to implement your variant with depca driver in past, but it was > > rejected by David Miller: > > http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2010/07/12/9 > > I disagree with David here, and in any case if you're going to make a > style change like this they really ought to be applied over all drivers > rather than just a few individual ones. It is not greppable situation to simply change the behavior of all drivers. I was looking for memory leak bugs in drivers/net/ and fixed some of them. Manual looking through _all_ drivers takes much more time. In general I try to search for repeatable bugs with coccinelle, but it is rare case. Thanks, -- Vasiliy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
