Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and parport_register_driver

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 05:20:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:38:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
> > patches doesn't work.
> yes, if the first patch is reverted for any reason all the others need
> to be reverted also. so then everything in one single patch?

The problem is that patch 1/1 breaks the build.  The rule is that we
should be able to apply part of a patch series and nothing breaks.  If
we apply the patch series out of order than things break that's our
problem, yes.  But if we apply only 1/1 and it breaks, that's a problem
with the series.

> > 
> > 2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
> > we would bail.  Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem
> > like it will simplify the driver code very much.  But I can also see
> > your point.  Hm...

My other issue with this patch series which is related to #2 is that
it's not clear that anyone is checking the return value and doing
correct things with it.

Hopefully, when we use the attach_ret() approach then it will be more
clear if/how the return value is useful.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html