Re: __setup return value

From: Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 13:47:20 EST


Tim Waugh writes:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Tim Waugh wrote:
> > When is a driver supposed to return 0 from a __setup function? When
> > it can't parse the options? Or when there's a possibility that the
> > option is intended for another driver?
>
> No-one seems to want to answer this, or else everyone missed it.
>
> Is it worth me making a patch to change the behaviour of those drivers
> that return 0 on error (rather that when the option could be used by
> another driver) to return 1 instead?

Tim,

Alan sent me the ARM specific bits of your patch, which will be going into
Linus tree via myself. Thanks for pointing it out.
   _____
  |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
  | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- ---
  | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html / / |
  | +-+-+ --- -+-
  / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
 / | | | --- |
    +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST