On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:03:54PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > 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? Ok, I think you are right, I've pushed the "remove __must_check" patch to driver-core-next and hopefully it should all be good now. 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
