From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com (mail-lj1-f182.google.com [209.85.208.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99B303FC2 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id s3so33883295ljp.11 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tsqcHJkTL2fwURihrviyy7Cwkwx4G6lXSSPjLR0KWHA=; b=JLyDSXz2ooq5hoTFgTsBZ3yJxbEMxnfB2qai9sZm0Y9JXXqEcZt61Axi6BwHZnaByq 1DuWeagXkuwwjVe9GIYGnfH4iA29DvqJk/oMzCGfCvUu55OqS4lap4RdNT/bww3N5hRe 2krmH2j+I2+EYh1j/y5qS6GXnTejn/fPbXzOrpcfSA70tLObaZ+1urdfmgRC7a48nKUw mxQCaFZdAGEGkSRmaIDlvVG5vzB88jqPIOo5HLkk3Scm4qFGRbxSmzs5mpRVKj/tvVy0 w4+9ayBxXj4ycBBsMrdvDK1IPAgW3znirFjjQZ0bh3wLXxk8xDF99nOSx5dWRSZCLWsF tPQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tsqcHJkTL2fwURihrviyy7Cwkwx4G6lXSSPjLR0KWHA=; b=oRoEKlGCUfh14Cck2WDz10/q0vBT245kSff7183Xy6cKfWjY7CYEAsXKI890ryk+tu bU1ZO5o4PnpHvgley1wUC0UbArCSqwp0inqtJWaK3766Q5ZKXC1S+dgZCDhVp/mJTPaO NWrEstiNdiyU2k71r6R6vL5DwYzR/K4wiuv6IrhPkSBLbrEJrr2qrco9w/m0MRuWA38a BVTdBx639dPgWs3hZP/o7zZne+Qdh+NVFpjyeZBukRQNqs0vue6wj9SEtUY0sO/jRBw6 YLAYalFJu0HOBntmWQFsot4GYXH0Dy9ocnAzIfog2xryVU24yd5BWVR4c5qxoIpQrmeM xtdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531P8jZUE8xoRhnePMXUCE4IfHhLaIaNSDaLzjogsRwcYXrmqnDY wJOA0rRLoZ/YUrPp4+/Cghk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwA+Thpe43qf0OcjA5eV7od8LAT3E9efxlkbAZ171f8CCW0fKsjZoPWWeN3+CTtAEDi0bKBVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9781:: with SMTP id y1mr29834479lji.307.1629754157624; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] ([46.235.66.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 13sm1590528ljf.110.2021.08.23.14.29.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: make rtw_deinit_intf_priv return void To: Phillip Potter Cc: Larry Finger , Greg KH , Michael Straube , "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20210823184059.19742-1-paskripkin@gmail.com> From: Pavel Skripkin Message-ID: <262ccda0-0aed-26e9-0585-e5376db86596@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:29:16 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/24/21 12:20 AM, Phillip Potter wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 19:41, Pavel Skripkin wrote: >> >> rtw_deinit_intf_priv() always return success, so there is no need in >> return value >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin >> --- >> drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c >> index e002070f7fba..37694aa96d13 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c >> @@ -129,13 +129,10 @@ static u8 rtw_init_intf_priv(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj) >> return rst; >> } >> >> -static u8 rtw_deinit_intf_priv(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj) >> +static void rtw_deinit_intf_priv(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj) >> { >> - u8 rst = _SUCCESS; >> - >> kfree(dvobj->usb_alloc_vendor_req_buf); >> _rtw_mutex_free(&dvobj->usb_vendor_req_mutex); >> - return rst; >> } >> >> static struct dvobj_priv *usb_dvobj_init(struct usb_interface *usb_intf) >> -- >> 2.32.0 >> > > Dear Pavel, > > Looks good - going to test your RFC series now btw. > Thank you, Phillip! Testing this RFC is very important. If it's all ok with it, I am going to add proper error handling all across the driver code, based on read() errors :) Btw, we also can add error handling for write() operations, but I think it's not _very_ important, since driver won't misbehave in case of write failures With regards, Pavel Skripkin