Am 30.10.2007 22:01 schrieb Andrew Morton: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:41:30 +0100 (CET) > Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]> >> >> Add basic suspend/resume support to the usb_gigaset driver. >> (Corrected version.) >> > > You're not a big fan of checkpatch, I see. Sorry. I promise to mend my ways. >> +static int gigaset_suspend(struct usb_interface *intf, pm_message_t message) >> +{ >> + struct cardstate *cs; >> + struct usb_cardstate *ucs; >> + >> + if ((cs = usb_get_intfdata(intf)) == NULL || >> + (ucs = cs->hw.usb) == NULL) { >> + err("%s: no cardstate", __func__); >> + return -EFAULT; >> + } > > Is the above reeeeeely needed? I bet it never happens. I'm a great believer in defensive programming. :-) Anyway, to be sure these checks aren't needed, I would need the assurance that the suspend and resume methods are serialized with the probe and disconnect methods. Are they? Thanks, Tilman -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [email protected] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes
- Next by Date: Re: 100% iowait on one of cpus in current -git
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb_gigaset: suspend support [v2]
- Index(es):
 |