On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, David Teigland wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:49:40 +0800
> From: David Teigland <[email protected]>
> To: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
