On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 19:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c [] > > @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int value) > > unsigned char com1, com8, aech, aechh; > > > > ret = ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM1, &com1) + > > - ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8); > > - ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh); > > + ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8); > > + ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > The new indenting isn't correct here and anyway the intent was to > combine all the error codes together and return them as an error > code jumble. I'm not a fan of error code jumbles, probably the > right thing is to check each function call or, barring that, to > return -EIO. ov7670_read via i2c_transfer can return a positive # too. Perhaps all of these should be individually tested for "< 0". -- 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
