Updated patch attached. --- Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Quoting myself: > > I'll apply your patch, thanks. > > On second thought, I think that the patch could be improved a bit: > > 1* You hide SENSORS_ERR_PROC errors for all channels, but I guess only > some of them can actually be missing with the 2.6 driver? > > 2* You return the exact same error message for the two possible causes > of failure (sensors_get_label_and_valid failing and sensors_get_feature > failing). Now that you separated the "if" statements, it would be better > to have different error messages. > > Care to send an updated patch? > > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lm_sensors-diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 15178 bytes Desc: lm_sensors-diff Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20050205/fad4ad68/attachment.obj
