On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:39 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:30:09PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 2/9/20 2:55 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the > > > > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should > > > > never do something different based on this. > > > > > > > > > > Should we follow that line of reasoning further, and simply return void > > > from the debugfs functions--rather than playing whack-a-mole with this > > > indefinitely? > > > > That is what we (well I) have been doing. Look at all of the changes > > that have happened to include/linux/debugfs.h over the past few > > releases. I'm slowly winnowing down the api to make it impossible to > > get wrong for this type of thing, and am almost there. > > > > DRM is the big fish left to tackle, I have submitted some patches in the > > past, but lots more cleanup needs to be done to get them into mergable > > shape. I just need to find the time... > > Just to avoid duplication, Wambui (cc'ed) just started working on > this. Expect a lot more void return values and a pile of deleted code > rsn. Nice! It's not duplication if I haven't started on it :) greg k-h _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
