Hello Julia, IMHO keep the patch as it is. It does not change any code that is good. Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed in a separate patch. just my 2 cents, re, wh Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall: > 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 > -- 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
