On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:51, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:42:29AM +0200, walter harms wrote: >> Is there any reason to release the data "backwards" ? >> The default way is to go upwards. that looks more readable. > > I considered doing it that way. It would work. I throught maybe > they were going to add something where it needed to be unwound LIFO > order. > > I'll wait for Jean-Françoisto say which way is prefered. > Sorry for the delay. Sorry also for the trouble this dummy copy/paste mistake is causing. It's a bit embarrassing even if the intentions are good ;) This second mistake explains why I wasn't getting ill effects from the remove. The sysfs files were removed backwards as a programmer reflex. In this case it is not really necessary since there are no real dependencies between the function implementations... but there may be in the future. This is why it's a safe habit to do it this way. I would keep the removal in reverse order, so I will ack the the v2 patch Cheers! /jfd > regards, > dan carpenter -- 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
