From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:50:57 -0800
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:21:11 -0800 > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > net/core/dev.c:unregister_netdev() function is a wrapper around > > > net/core/dev.c:unregister_netdevice(). The unregister_netdevice() > > > function > > > returns a return code while unregister_netdev() currently does not. For > > > completeness, we should pass the return code from unregister_netdevice() > > > all the > > > way to the caller. unregister_netdev() should not swallow the return > > > code. > > > > > > > Certainly there's some truth in that ;) > > > > Is there some reason why you want to test the unregister_netdev() return > > value? > The only return value is -ENODEV, so I would vote for both just being void Me too. FWIW, I think bug reports like this are a lot of back-and-forth waste of time. If it's important enough to someone, let them write a god-damn patch for something so amazingly trivial. With the bugzill entry, you have to respond to it, change it's diapers, etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
