From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] armada: no need to check return value of debugfs_create functions
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:43:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190613174304.GC9415@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613161559.tef4ajcs5rdldf5d@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 05:15:59PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 06:01:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:36:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > > > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > > > never do something different based on this.
> > >
> > > Please don't merge this patch - I have a change that conflicts with this
> > > which switches us over to using drm_debugfs_create_files(), thereby
> > > eliminating this code.
> >
> > Isn't it "first received, first applied?" That's how it is for my
> > subsystems...
>
> When I started working on the kernel in the 1990s, it was "the most
> technically correct approach of competing approaches". If we've
> now switched to "first received, first applied" that can only be
> harmful and demotivating to those who wish to do a good job.
>
> If someone has a better approach ready to go, why should the
> inferior approach be applied and then the better approach have to
> be rebased on top of the inferior approach? This makes no sense.
If you have a better approach ready to go, please post it and I will be
glad to rebase my patch on top of yours.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-13 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 13:28 [PATCH] armada: no need to check return value of debugfs_create functions Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-06-13 14:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-06-13 16:01 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-06-13 16:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-06-13 17:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190613174304.GC9415@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.