From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266251AbUA2Q5P (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:57:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266252AbUA2Q5P (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:57:15 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:58837 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266251AbUA2Q5K (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:57:10 -0500 Message-ID: <40193B43.7020904@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:56:35 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wiran, Francis" CC: Greg KH , Hollis Blanchard , Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpqarray update References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Wiran, Francis wrote: > check for negative value? That's odd. The pci_register_driver() in my > copy of 2.4.24 kernel (drivers/pci/pci.c) looks something like this: > > { > count = 0; > > for .... > count += foo(); > > return count; > } > > > Or will it change in the future? The patch that I sent was based on what > is in the current kernel. Correct, Greg was referring to 2.6.x behavior of pci_register_driver(), which changed from 2.4.x. Jeff