Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and parport_register_driver

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@parallels.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <willy@meta-x.org>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and parport_register_driver
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:38:32 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150408113832.GH10964@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1428492040-5581-2-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>

1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
patches doesn't work.

2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
we would bail.  Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem
like it will simplify the driver code very much.  But I can also see
your point.  Hm...

Minor comment:  No need to preserve the error code if there are lots
which we miss.  We may as well hard code an error code.  But that's a
minor thing.  Does this actually simplify the driver code?  That's the
more important thing.

regards,
dan carpenter