From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com (Sakari Ailus) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:20:19 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [media] media: rename media unregister function In-Reply-To: <56EC0DF9.4050601@osg.samsung.com> References: <2ffc02c944068b2c8655727238d1542f8328385d.1458306276.git.mchehab@osg.samsung.com> <56EC0A55.3010803@osg.samsung.com> <56EC0CC4.1070309@osg.samsung.com> <56EC0DF9.4050601@osg.samsung.com> Message-ID: <56EC0EA3.6010108@linux.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Shuah Khan wrote: > On 03/18/2016 08:12 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Hello Shuah, >> >> On 03/18/2016 11:01 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 03/18/2016 07:05 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>> Now that media_device_unregister() also does a cleanup, rename it >>>> to media_device_unregister_cleanup(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab >>> >>> I think adding cleanup is redundant. media_device_unregister() >>> would imply that there has to be some cleanup releasing resources. >>> I wouldn't make this change. >>> >> >> Problem is that there is a media_device_init() and media_device_register(), >> so having both unregister and cleanup in this function will make very clear >> that a single function is the counter part of the previous two operations. >> > > Yes. I realized that this change is motivated by the fact that there is > the media_device_init() and we had the counterpart media_device_cleanup() > as an exported function. I still think there is no need to make the change > to add _cleanup() at the end of media_device_unregister(). It can be handled > in API documentation that it does both. I think that's a bad idea. People will only read the documentation when something doesn't work. In this case it's easy to miss that. -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus at linux.intel.com