From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:46721 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbbEAR71 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 13:59:27 -0400 Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1YoFDi-000PP5-0M for linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 01 May 2015 17:59:26 +0000 Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 10:59:23 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Timur Tabi Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Ashwin Chaugule , Vipul Gandhi , Fu Wei , Al Stone , Wim Van Sebroeck , Hanjun Guo , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: introduce the ARM64 SBSA watchdog driver Message-ID: <20150501175923.GC7712@roeck-us.net> References: <1430336034-5275-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <5542F33D.2020206@roeck-us.net> <5543A6E9.1090203@codeaurora.org> <5543B7D0.706@codeaurora.org> <20150501173209.GA7712@roeck-us.net> <5543BAE7.5040909@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5543BAE7.5040909@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 12:41:59PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 05/01/2015 12:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >devm_ioremap_resource already prints a message. For this reason, elsewhere in the > >kernel the check for !res before calling devm_ioremap_resource is being removed, > >leaving the error handling to devm_ioremap_resource. I would suggest to do the > >same here. > > I see what you're saying, but I leave the error handling to > devm_ioremap_resource(), then no one will know whether it's because the > control address or the refresh address is missing. The user will just see > "invalid resource" and won't what resource is actually invalid. > You are saying that pretty much everyone in the kernel is, in your opinion, doing the Wrong Thing (tm) and you insist in doing it differently. As maintainer, I have seen lots of patches which remove this very same error checking as unnecessary. If we accept your code, we can be all but sure to see such a patch at some point, probably right after your patch was accepted and shows up in linux-next. So besides arguing about something we should not have to argue about in the first place, you are trying to create even more maintainer work going forward. Is that really neceessary ? And then people wonder why maintainers sometimes get grumpy :-(. Guenter