On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:36:08 +0100 > Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Further simplify the remove() callback and error paths in probe() by > > using the managed variant of request_irq() as well as using a devm action > > for cancelling the delayed work at driver detach. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Again, this is potentially fine but I'd rather you cleaned up the ordering first > rather than doing things in this order. > > The end result of the whole series looks like it will be correct, but that isn't > so obvious for the intermediate patches on their own. > > Also, you end up with a lot of noise renaming gotos that then go away at the > end. > > Jonathan > Hi Jonathan, My two priorities for the ordering of this series were: correct end-result and not breaking anything on the way. The latter unfortunately gets in the way of cleaner looking intermediate patches. I tried to not alter the ordering in which the resources are freed at any step. As devres release callbacks are called *after* remove() and in a reverse order to how they were registered, I needed to start from the bottom of the remove() callback and convert the last operation, then go upwards from there. If I tried to do it from the top - I probably could remove labels earlier and in a cleaner manner but it wouldn't guarantee bisectability. Bartosz
