From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752833AbbBSAC6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:02:58 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0022.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.22]:50576 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752488AbbBSAC5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:02:57 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2559:2562:2828:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3350:3622:3865:3867:3868:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:6261:10004:10400:10450:10455:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:19904:19999:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: lace88_19809b67a9c4d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1328 Message-ID: <1424304173.25416.28.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: Remove uses of return value of seq_printf From: Joe Perches To: minyard@acm.org Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, LKML Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:02:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: <54E4D26B.6020509@acm.org> References: <1424200256.25416.3.camel@perches.com> <54E4D26B.6020509@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:56 -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > Thanks, queued for 3.20. Hey Corey, thanks, but I'll either have to send a new patch or an updated patch changing these new seq_has_overflowed() uses to 0. There's no functional difference, but there is a logical one. has_overflowed(), if it returns "true" (it won't here because the first alloc seq_fs does has sufficient space) would not retry and simply not emit anything. Anyway, do you want a new patch or a relative patch? sorry 'bout that, Joe