>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Bart, Bart> Sorry but I still don't understand why the two checks are Bart> different. How about the (untested) patch below? The approach Bart> below avoids that the check is duplicated and - at least in my Bart> opinion - results in code that is easier to read. I'll take a closer look at your patch tomorrow. I am sympathetic to having a sanity check helper function. That would also give us a single place to filter out crackpot values reported by USB doodads. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
