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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
