On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> The ->drop_item() is indeed a void function, the ->drop_link() is
> actually not. This, together with the fact that the value of ->drop_link()
> is silently ignored suggests, that it is the ->drop_link() return
> type that sho
Hi Laurent,
Thanks for a reminder. Please see inline.
W dniu 22.11.2016 o 18:27, Laurent Pinchart pisze:
Hi Andrzej and Julia,
Could one of you please submit a patch to fix this ?
On Thursday 17 Sep 2015 13:18:04 Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
Hi Julia,
W dniu 17.09.2015 o 10:57, Julia Lawal
Hi Andrzej and Julia,
Could one of you please submit a patch to fix this ?
On Thursday 17 Sep 2015 13:18:04 Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> W dniu 17.09.2015 o 10:57, Julia Lawall pisze:
> > Coccinelle suggests the following patch. But the code is curious. Is the
> > function expe
> Fortunately it does not matter anyway because the return value
> of the drop_link() operation is silently ignored by its caller in
> fs/configfs/symlink.c, functions configfs_symlink() and configfs_unlink().
Should such an implementation detail be also reconsidered once more?
Regards,
Markus
--
Hi Julia,
W dniu 17.09.2015 o 10:57, Julia Lawall pisze:
Coccinelle suggests the following patch. But the code is curious. Is the
function expected to always return a failure value?
Thank you for catching this. The function is not expected to always
return a failure value. Fortunately it do
Coccinelle suggests the following patch. But the code is curious. Is the
function expected to always return a failure value?
thanks,
julia
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, kbuild test robot wrote:
> TO: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
> CC: kbuild-...@01.org
> CC: Felipe Balbi
> CC: Laurent Pinchart
> CC: "Greg
6 matches
Mail list logo
