Re: [PATCH] SCSI: fix the return type of the remove() method in sgiwd93.c

["Vorobiev Dmitri" <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>]

>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 19:42, Vorobiev Dmitri
>> <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:52 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 18:08, James Bottomley
>>>>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>>>> > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:24 +0200, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote:
>>>>> >> > This patch fixes the following compilation warning:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >   CC [M]  drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.o
>>>>> >> > drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c:314: warning: initialization from
>>>>> incompatible
>>>>> >> > pointer type
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Any news about this one? I think this patch should go via
>>>>> linux-scsi,
>>>>> >> unless you would be insisting on pushing it via linux-mips, in
>>>>> which
>>>>> case
>>>>> >> I'll politely bug Ralf about it. :)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Looks OK for the local change.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Globally, having driver->remove and platform_driver->remove return
>>>>> int
>>>>> > instead of void looks wrong.  Particularly when the only use cases
>>>>> are
>>>>> > in drivers/base/ and they all ignore the return code.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Greg and Kay ... shouldn't we simply redefine the return values for
>>>>> the
>>>>> > remove methods in these structures to return void (and thus match
>>>>> the
>>>>> > use case)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't there many many drivers across the tree, using the "int
>>>>> remove"
>>>>> version?
>>>>
>>>> Yes ... since it's a function prototype.
>>>>
>>>> However, if drivers/base simply discards the return, it's a trap we
>>>> shouldn't be setting.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, it does look like the return value is discarded, please see
>>> drivers/base/dd.c::__device_release_driver() for details.
>>>
>>> Does this not deserve a good cleanup?
>>
>> Sure, it might be. If you want to patch hundreds of files, send
>> patches to maintainers, patch drivers you can not even compile, we
>> could do that.
>>
>> We are already in the middle of a ~400 files "struct device" bus_id
>> conversion, and only very few maintainers respond to these patches. We
>> also never got any reply to the SCSI bus_id patch we sent weeks ago.
>> :)
>>
>> Even when it's "a good cleanup", with maintainers not responding, and
>> supporting it, it's a real pain to change things like this. But, if
>> you want to go ahead and do that, let us know.
>
> Well, I don't really want to look like a coward, but I guess this a good
> project for Kernel Janitors, and I'm Cc:ing their mailing list now.

...and meanwhile, could you James please apply the original patch to
silence the compiler warning until the void (*remove)() is introduced?

Thanks,
Dmitri