>> I got the impression that the functions which are called at the updated places >> by the function “snd_card_pcsp_probe” indicate a successful execution >> only by zero so far. > > You have the impression, great. This aspect is also a general programming interface issue for some functions. > And what's the reason to drop the negative check? * I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”. * It is also a small source code reduction. > It's not clearer, not better readable. It seems that we have got different development opinions this time. > And, the worst part is that you've done it silently even without > mentioning in the change log at all. That's really bad. > Just don't do it. I found it not relevant enough for the commit message. > For example, the control API functions may return the positive number > when the value got changed, 0 for else, and a negative number for the > error. The functions returning some numbers may return positive > numbers, of course. Did I touch any specific function calls which belong to this programming interface category? Regards, Markus -- 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
