From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitri Vorobiev Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:00:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from Message-Id: <49424438.7030205@movial.fi> List-Id: References: <8bd0f97a0812100928l2c75d373n7eba5aa0cc3882fd@mail.gmail.com> <53806.88.114.236.15.1228947522.squirrel@webmail.movial.fi> <8bd0f97a0812101437r4abb9346p8bc8d512ddc02cde@mail.gmail.com> <20081212051759.GA12563@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20081212051759.GA12563@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Greg KH Cc: Mike Frysinger , Julia Lawall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:37:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:18, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote: >>>>> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus >>>>> of >>>>> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus >>>>> unnecessary. The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert >>>>> the >>>>> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they >>>>> return >>>>> void. This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return >>>>> type >>>>> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that >>>>> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new >>>>> field, >>>>> if one is available. The subsequent patches update some drivers to use >>>>> the >>>>> remove_new field. >>>> why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ? >>> Please see this email for the background: >>> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/231 >>> >>>> you'll get a >>>> warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure, >>> ...unless you compile with -Werror, which frequently the case. >> anyone crazy enough to build with -Werror is crazy enough to send in a fix ;) > > Hm, have you noted that some arches have that flag enabled in their > build? > > And it's not ok to add a couple of hundred build warnings to the system, > sorry. Still, what about the whole series? What do you think about int->void migration for the remove() callback? Thanks, Dmitri > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- > 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/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758041AbYLLLAr (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:00:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757846AbYLLLAN (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:00:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.movial.fi ([62.236.91.34]:51552 "EHLO smtp.movial.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757625AbYLLLAL (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:00:11 -0500 Message-ID: <49424438.7030205@movial.fi> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:00:08 +0200 From: Dmitri Vorobiev Organization: Movial Creative Technologies User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Mike Frysinger , Julia Lawall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from platform_driver remove functions References: <8bd0f97a0812100928l2c75d373n7eba5aa0cc3882fd@mail.gmail.com> <53806.88.114.236.15.1228947522.squirrel@webmail.movial.fi> <8bd0f97a0812101437r4abb9346p8bc8d512ddc02cde@mail.gmail.com> <20081212051759.GA12563@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20081212051759.GA12563@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:37:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:18, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote: >>>>> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus >>>>> of >>>>> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus >>>>> unnecessary. The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert >>>>> the >>>>> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they >>>>> return >>>>> void. This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return >>>>> type >>>>> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that >>>>> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new >>>>> field, >>>>> if one is available. The subsequent patches update some drivers to use >>>>> the >>>>> remove_new field. >>>> why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ? >>> Please see this email for the background: >>> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/231 >>> >>>> you'll get a >>>> warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure, >>> ...unless you compile with -Werror, which frequently the case. >> anyone crazy enough to build with -Werror is crazy enough to send in a fix ;) > > Hm, have you noted that some arches have that flag enabled in their > build? > > And it's not ok to add a couple of hundred build warnings to the system, > sorry. Still, what about the whole series? What do you think about int->void migration for the remove() callback? Thanks, Dmitri > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- > 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/