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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox