> Agreed, but the question is which approach to use. :) Declaring it as void
> sounds like it may involve a lot of driver fixup work.
For the first way of doing I already provided a patch, which started this
thread. (returning the release() value proparly to the close())
However if I get a word from the applicate maintaners (linus or viro) that a
patch declaring release() with void return type will be accepted for 2.5.x, I
would volunteer for providing it. Should not be that much of a work, once you
concentrate on it. However I'm not doing it for the birds :o) (without
consultation first).
Personlaly I'm unsure which of both decisions would be better, but am
unsatisfied with the way it's currently.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 22:00:11 EST