Re: [PATCH 1/2] ramoops: use pstore interface

[Chen Gong <gong.chen@linux.intel.com>]

[...]
>>> +       /* TODO(kees): It shouldn't be possible to remove ramoops since
>>> +        * pstore doesn't support unregistering yet. When it does, remove
>>> +        * this early return and add the unregister where noted below.
>>> +        */
>>> +       return -EBUSY;
>>
>> This style is not reasonable. Maybe it should have a better wrap.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It's wrapped roughly to
> column 75 already. What would be better for this comment? Or did you
> mean I shouldn't have unreachable code?

I mean you shouldn't write unreachable codes. It looks weird.

>
>> BTW, you need to update Documentation/ramoops.txt
>
> Ah! Yes, thanks for the reminder.
>
> -Kees
>