On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:52:00 +0100 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Maybe best plan is to squash last 3 patches into one? I suspect that's going to be easier to review. Jonathan > Bartosz
