Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1201131 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and returns in HCI/SCI functions

Started byDarren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
First post2015-08-05 22:30 +0200
Last post2015-08-06 19:20 +0200
Articles 5 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and  returns in HCI/SCI functions Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2015-08-05 22:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and  returns in HCI/SCI functions Azael Avalos <coproscefalo@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 00:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and  returns in HCI/SCI functions Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2015-08-06 01:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and  returns in HCI/SCI functions Azael Avalos <coproscefalo@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 18:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and  returns in HCI/SCI functions Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2015-08-06 19:20 +0200

#1201131 — Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and returns in HCI/SCI functions

FromDarren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Date2015-08-05 22:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and returns in HCI/SCI functions
Message-ID<pUdu3-3Ci-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
>  
>  	result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
>  	sci_close(dev);
> -	if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
> +	if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
>  		pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
> -		return -EIO;
> -	} else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> +	else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
>  		return -ENODEV;
> -	} else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> -		return -EIO;
> -	}
>  
>  	return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;

Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
I can determine.

It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
perhaps?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201289

FromAzael Avalos <coproscefalo@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-06 00:30 +0200
Message-ID<pUfma-6lp-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201131
Hi Darren,

2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
>> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
>>
>>       result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
>>       sci_close(dev);
>> -     if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
>> +     if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
>>               pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
>> -             return -EIO;
>> -     } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
>> +     else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
>>               return -ENODEV;
>> -     } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
>> -             return -EIO;
>> -     }
>>
>>       return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
>
> Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
> missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
> I can determine.

I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
these embarrassments :-(

>
> It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
> happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
> perhaps?

This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.

In the mean time, thanks for your observations, I'll try to keep a closer look
on future patches.

>
> --
> Darren Hart
> Intel Open Source Technology Center


Cheers
Azael

-- 
-- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201337

FromDarren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Date2015-08-06 01:30 +0200
Message-ID<pUgie-7Hc-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201289
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> Hi Darren,
> 
> 2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> >> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
> >>
> >>       result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
> >>       sci_close(dev);
> >> -     if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
> >> +     if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> >>               pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> >> +     else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> >>               return -ENODEV;
> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> -     }
> >>
> >>       return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
> >
> > Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
> > missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
> > I can determine.
> 
> I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
> have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
> these embarrassments :-(
> 
> >
> > It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
> > happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
> > perhaps?
> 
> This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
> a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.

Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has
already passed my checks and 0day's.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201890

FromAzael Avalos <coproscefalo@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-06 18:30 +0200
Message-ID<pUwdk-5WC-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201337
Hi Darren,

2015-08-05 17:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
>> Hi Darren,
>>
>> 2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
>> >> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
>> >>
>> >>       result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
>> >>       sci_close(dev);
>> >> -     if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
>> >> +     if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
>> >>               pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
>> >> -             return -EIO;
>> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
>> >> +     else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
>> >>               return -ENODEV;
>> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
>> >> -             return -EIO;
>> >> -     }
>> >>
>> >>       return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
>> >
>> > Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
>> > missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
>> > I can determine.
>>
>> I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
>> have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
>> these embarrassments :-(
>>
>> >
>> > It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
>> > happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
>> > perhaps?
>>
>> This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
>> a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.
>
> Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has
> already passed my checks and 0day's.

I just checked it, and it's good, sorry for all the fuzz :-)

>
> --
> Darren Hart
> Intel Open Source Technology Center

Cheers
Azael


-- 
-- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201921

FromDarren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Date2015-08-06 19:20 +0200
Message-ID<pUwZI-77V-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201890
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:21:15AM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> Hi Darren,
> 
> 2015-08-05 17:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> >> Hi Darren,
> >>
> >> 2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> >> >> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
> >> >>
> >> >>       result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
> >> >>       sci_close(dev);
> >> >> -     if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
> >> >> +     if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> >> >>               pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
> >> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> >> >> +     else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> >> >>               return -ENODEV;
> >> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> >> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> >> -     }
> >> >>
> >> >>       return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
> >> >
> >> > Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
> >> > missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
> >> > I can determine.
> >>
> >> I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
> >> have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
> >> these embarrassments :-(
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
> >> > happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
> >> > perhaps?
> >>
> >> This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
> >> a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.
> >
> > Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has
> > already passed my checks and 0day's.
> 
> I just checked it, and it's good, sorry for all the fuzz :-)

Great, these are all queued to for-next.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web