On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:07:52AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 17:21, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 05:45:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Because of the powerpc problems above, I have used the driver-core tree > >> from next-20111222 for today. > > > > Sorry about all of the problems, we tried to fix everything we could, > > but your merges and cross-builds found stuff we missed :( > > > > Kay, care to send me patches to fix this, and all of the other > > linux-next-reported problems to me so we can get this resolved this > > week? > > I rather don't want to add error checking to stuff that doesn't do it > today. The sysdev stuff never had that forced checks, but the normal > device stuff has. That's fine. > I think the force return value check is really a pretty misguided idea > in general, and it's up to the caller to do these checks and handle > rollbacks, not the driver core, I think. > > Can't we just remove that forced check? Probably, if it fixes these warning-is-an-error problems. There were other issues with linux-next that were build issues, not just this one from what I recall, that kept Stephen from including the tree in linux-next. I can bounce them to you if you missed them. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
