Messages in this thread | | | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: __setup return value | Date | Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:47:20 +0100 (BST) |
| |
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/
| |