Re: [PATCH 4/7] dlm: configuration

[Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, David Teigland wrote:

> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:49:40 +0800
> From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
> To: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dlm: configuration
> 
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:53:49PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, David Teigland wrote:
> 
> > > +static ssize_t dlm_id_store(struct dlm_ls *ls, const char *buf, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > +	ls->ls_global_id = simple_strtol(buf, NULL, 0);
> > > +	return len;
> > > +}
> >
> > What's the point of `len' in these two functions? 
> > You pass in `len`, don't use it at all, then return the value. I fail to 
> > see the usefulness. Why not just have the function return void and omit 
> > the `len' parameter?
> 
> Do I have a choice?  Aren't these stipulated by sysfs?
> 
Hmm, right you are. I simply did a quick scan through the code and 
commented on everything that seemed odd, I didn't look into it in too much 
detail (too much code, too little time), so I may also have flagged a few 
other things that are perfectly OK but just seemed odd on a quick pass.


-- 
Jesper Juhl

-
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/