Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] devres: Add devm_remove_action_optional() helper

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:40:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:30:07PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:44:59PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > +/* Same as devm_remove_action(), but doesn't WARN() if action wasn't added before */
> > > > +static inline
> > > > +void devm_remove_action_optional(struct device *dev, void (*action)(void *), void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = devm_remove_action_nowarn(dev, action, data);
> > > > +	if (ret == -ENOENT)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	WARN_ON(ret);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Trying to wrap my head around this one, can't the user simply do
> > > 
> > > 	if (devm_is_action_added())
> > > 		devm_remove_action/_nowarn();
> > 
> > Hmm... Actually it sounds like a good point. I will check
> > (and I like the idea of dropping this patch).
> 
> And perhaps
> 
> s/devm_is_action_added/devm_action_is_added
> 
> But whichever you think _is best_ ;)

I thought about that and that's why I would like to stick to the my variant.

Thanks for the review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko