Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:36:42 +1100 | From | David Gibson <> | Subject | Re: Another trivial orinoco update |
| |
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:17:38PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote: > David Gibson <hermes@gibson.dropbear.id.au> : > [...] > > This patch alters the convention with which orinoco_lock() is invoked > > in the orinoco driver. This should cause no behavioural change, but > > reduces meaningless diffs between the mainline and CVS version of the > > driver. Another small step towards a merge. > > Afaics orinico_lock returns a nice status code. Let alone the merge > argument (which could be solved in the CVS tree as well), is there a > technical reason for this patch ?
orinoco_lock() only ever returns either 0 or -EBUSY, so it's essentially boolean. There's no reason to expect it would ever return anything else. Using it in if statements directly removes a few lines of code, removes the need for a few extra 'err' variables, and makes things slightly neater in the case where just propagating the -EBUSY up isn't the right thing to do. It's no big deal, but we did make this change in CVS for a reason.
-- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |