Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:52:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:52:24 -0500 Received: from mario.gams.at ([194.42.96.10]:14200 "EHLO mario.gams.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:52:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200203260852.JAA05393@merlin.gams.co.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Axel Kittenberger Organization: Maxxio Technologies To: David Brown Subject: Re: Patch, forward release() return values to the close() call Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:52:08 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200203210747.IAA25949@merlin.gams.co.at> <200203250950.KAA23657@merlin.gams.co.at> <20020325083350.A16464@codewhore.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Agreed, but the question is which approach to use. :) Declaring it as void > sounds like it may involve a lot of driver fixup work. For the first way of doing I already provided a patch, which started this thread. (returning the release() value proparly to the close()) However if I get a word from the applicate maintaners (linus or viro) that a patch declaring release() with void return type will be accepted for 2.5.x, I would volunteer for providing it. Should not be that much of a work, once you concentrate on it. However I'm not doing it for the birds :o) (without consultation first). Personlaly I'm unsure which of both decisions would be better, but am unsatisfied with the way it's currently. - 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/