On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, 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
index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
--- 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.
Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to abort
these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could introduce
some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
What should I do with the big patch? Resend it with this cut out? Or,
considering that I might have overlooked something else, send 90 some
little ones?
thanks,
julia
--
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
