Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from platform_driver remove functions

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

Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:37:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:18, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>>> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus
>>>>> of
>>>>> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus
>>>>> unnecessary.  The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert
>>>>> the
>>>>> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they
>>>>> return
>>>>> void.  This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return
>>>>> type
>>>>> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that
>>>>> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new
>>>>> field,
>>>>> if one is available.  The subsequent patches update some drivers to use
>>>>> the
>>>>> remove_new field.
>>>> why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ?
>>> Please see this email for the background:
>>>
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/231
>>>
>>>>  you'll get a
>>>> warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure,
>>> ...unless you compile with -Werror, which frequently the case.
>> anyone crazy enough to build with -Werror is crazy enough to send in a fix ;)
> 
> Hm, have you noted that some arches have that flag enabled in their
> build?
> 
> And it's not ok to add a couple of hundred build warnings to the system,
> sorry.

Still, what about the whole series? What do you think about int->void migration for the remove() callback?

Thanks,
Dmitri

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/