From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: Fix phy_modify() semantic difference fallout
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:48:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180109144813.GC724@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180109142248.GG17719@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
> > I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses
> > of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it
> > return 0 on success seems like a better fix.
>
> I'd like to avoid that, because I don't want to have yet another
> accessor that needs to be used for advertisment modification (where
> we need to know if we changed any bits.)
>
> That's why this accessor returns the old value.
Hi Russell
where exactly is this use case? I've not found it yet.
I can understand your argument. But how long it is going to take us to
find all the breakage because the return value has changed meaning?
The trade off is adding yet another accessor vs debugging and fixing
the repercussions.
I think i prefer not breaking existing code.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-09 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-09 11:11 [PATCH] net: phy: Fix phy_modify() semantic difference fallout Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-09 14:10 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-09 14:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-09 14:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-09 14:48 ` Andrew Lunn [this message]
2018-01-09 14:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-09 18:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-09 18:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-09 18:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-09 14:35 ` Niklas Cassel
2018-01-11 15:48 ` David Miller
2018-01-11 15:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-11 15:54 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-11 16:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-01-11 16:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-11 17:04 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-11 20:28 ` Florian Fainelli
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=20180109144813.GC724@lunn.ch \
--to=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).