Brandeburg, Jesse <[email protected]> : > On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 08:44 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > Nitpicking ... at some point in time i40e_status should be removed plus > > I40E_ERR_PARAM, I40E_SUCCESS, I40E_ERR_NO_MEMORY and the like, as we have > > int and -EINVAL, 0, -ENOMEM for that. ;-) > > First, thanks Daniel for taking the time to review. > > Those are a result of our files that are shared across OSes, as not all > OSes have -ENOMEM etc, we also have a lot of status codes the kernel > doesn't have. That said, when there is a 1-1 relationship the > replacements should be made.
It should always be made. You have kept ignoring it since june (see Ben Hutchings's comment on 2013/06/19). Where did you see that rules changed and the linux kernel should care about OS shared code ? - the patchkit does not include a Makefile to compile from patch #1 - it would not compile since patch #1 depends on stuff that appears later (see i40e_hw or i40e_lump_tracking for instance). - some of the I40E_ERR_PARAM error can't happen or are assert() in disguise that could / should instead BUG(). There is no reason to confuse these with runtime failures, especially as code gets really tested on hardware. I could understand it from some newly introduced company but it's a bit deceptive from Intel. :o/ -- Ueimor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
