Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754741Ab3HEQTV (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:19:21 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:1484 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753817Ab3HEQTT (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:19:19 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,819,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="28556013" Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:19:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Dan Carpenter cc: trivial@kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, m.chehab@samsung.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment In-Reply-To: <20130805160645.GI5051@mwanda> Message-ID: References: <1375714059-29567-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <1375714059-29567-5-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <20130805160645.GI5051@mwanda> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1561 Lines: 40 On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c >> index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c >> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c >> @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int value) >> unsigned char com1, com8, aech, aechh; >> >> ret = ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM1, &com1) + >> - ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8); >> - ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh); >> + ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8); >> + ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> > > The new indenting isn't correct here and anyway the intent was to > combine all the error codes together and return them as an error > code jumble. I'm not a fan of error code jumbles, probably the > right thing is to check each function call or, barring that, to > return -EIO. Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to abort these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could introduce some more variables, and test them all afterwards. What should I do with the big patch? Resend it with this cut out? Or, considering that I might have overlooked something else, send 90 some little ones? thanks, julia -- 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/