On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, David Miller wrote:

From: santosh prasad nayak <redacted>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:26:14 +0530

quoted

Caller is interpreting 0 in opposite way of normal sequence.
Thats why I misunderstood it.

The simple fact is that you didn't even look at the code at the call
sites when you wrote this patch, and that's the first thing anyone is
going to do when reviewing it.

Therefore your laziness results in more useless work for other people.
I just wanted to point out how selfish and anti-social this kind of
behavior is.

Not to pour too much salt on a wound, but just 5 lines above the patch 
site is the comment:

  * Return value:
  *      1 - success, 0 - error

And the error label also returns 0.  So there is a lot of local 
information that one can use to see what protocol the function follows.

That said, it's a bit too bad that two protocols have to coexist.

julia