Re: [PATCH] Remove error prints for devm_add_action_or_reset()

[Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 06:15:51PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:25 -0300 Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from geraldogabriel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:03:33PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote:
> >> When `devm_add_action_or_reset()` fails, it is due to a failed memory
> >> allocation and will thus return `-ENOMEM`. `dev_err_probe()` doesn't do
> >> anything when error is `-ENOMEM`. Therefore, remove the useless call to
> >> `dev_err_probe()` when `devm_add_action_or_reset()` fails, and just
> >> return the value instead.
> >
> > Hi Waqar,
> >
> > thank you for the patch. However I personally advise you to split the
> > patches per-file and remember to then precede each individual patch
> > subject with the proper subsystem and driver touched.
> >
> > While this looks like a nit-pick, it really isn't, and my suggestion
> > will make reviewing much more easier and you'll get your Reviewed-by's
> > and Acked-by's much more smoothly.
> >
> > The cover-letter should probably be preceded by "treewide" instead of
> > a specific subsystem.
> 
> Thank you for the suggestion Geraldo! I will do that (as also answered
> to David).

You're welcome Waqar! Note that David's suggestion is even smarter than
mine: instead of patch-bombing lots of maintainers with changes unrelated
to their subsystems through a treewide change, he suggests you split the
patch into one series per subsystem. This is indeed advisable.

Thanks,
Geraldo Nascimento