On 08/03/2010 04:28 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:26:28 PDT, "Justin P. Mattock" said:
diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
if (alt->string)
- retval = device_create_file(&intf->dev,&dev_attr_interface);
+ device_create_file(&intf->dev,&dev_attr_interface);
intf->sysfs_files_created = 1;
return 0;
What should the code do if device_create_file() manages to fail? Yes, ignoring
the return value is one option, but is it the best one? 'return ret;' might be
another one. Somebody who understands this code and has more caffeine than me
should look this over.
ignoring the return value is one option, but is it the best one?
probably not. As for return ret; the option did cross my mind, but
figured to do what I had done by removing the retval
(Nothing personal Justin - it's just my opinion that *anytime* we have a patch
that remove a check for a return code, it needs to justify that ignoring the
return code is appropriate).
nothing personal taken.. in fact I agree with that whole paragraph.
looking back I should of really explained why I was removing this code
besides a warning message.
Thanks for the response and info on this..
Justin P. Mattock
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
