On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 05:20:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:38:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
- We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
patches doesn't work.
yes, if the first patch is reverted for any reason all the others need to be reverted also. so then everything in one single patch?
The problem is that patch 1/1 breaks the build. The rule is that we should be able to apply part of a patch series and nothing breaks. If we apply the patch series out of order than things break that's our problem, yes. But if we apply only 1/1 and it breaks, that's a problem with the series.
- I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
we would bail. Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem like it will simplify the driver code very much. But I can also see your point. Hm...
My other issue with this patch series which is related to #2 is that it's not clear that anyone is checking the return value and doing correct things with it.
Hopefully, when we use the attach_ret() approach then it will be more clear if/how the return value is useful.
regards, dan carpenter