From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7708] New: unregister_netdev() should return unregister_netdevice() return code Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:37:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20061218.173745.08333482.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200612182256.kBIMuVio025766@fire-2.osdl.org> <20061218152111.868f9284.akpm@osdl.org> <20061218155057.1904f666@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@osdl.org, benjamin.li@qlogic.com, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49454 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932635AbWLSBiM (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:38:12 -0500 To: shemminger@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20061218155057.1904f666@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:50:57 -0800 > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:21:11 -0800 > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > net/core/dev.c:unregister_netdev() function is a wrapper around > > > net/core/dev.c:unregister_netdevice(). The unregister_netdevice() function > > > returns a return code while unregister_netdev() currently does not. For > > > completeness, we should pass the return code from unregister_netdevice() all the > > > way to the caller. unregister_netdev() should not swallow the return code. > > > > > > > Certainly there's some truth in that ;) > > > > Is there some reason why you want to test the unregister_netdev() return > > value? > The only return value is -ENODEV, so I would vote for both just being void Me too. FWIW, I think bug reports like this are a lot of back-and-forth waste of time. If it's important enough to someone, let them write a god-damn patch for something so amazingly trivial. With the bugzill entry, you have to respond to it, change it's diapers, etc.