On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 01:31, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh, I thought that was all: "I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary" material. I might have missed some stuff, I don't see any others. Care to check yours and let me know? Thanks and sorry, Kay -- 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
