On Sat, 14 May 2022 15:41:59 +0200 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Jonathan, > > On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 09:24:24 +0200 > > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 03:38:55PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > On Sun, 1 May 2022 18:51:23 +0100 > > > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 1 May 2022 18:41:49 +0100 > > > > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:15:58 +0200 > > > > > > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this series adapts several i2c drivers that emit two error messages if > > > > > > > something in their remove function fails. The relevant issue is that the > > > > > > > i2c core emits an error message if the remove callback returns a > > > > > > > non-zero value but the drivers already emit a (better) message. So > > > > > > > these patches change the drivers to return 0 even after an error. Note > > > > > > > there is no further error handling in the i2c core, if a remove callback > > > > > > > returns an error code, the device is removed anyhow, so the only effect > > > > > > > of making the return value zero is that the error message is suppressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The motivation for this series is to eventually change the prototype of > > > > > > > the i2c remove callback to return void. As a preparation all remove > > > > > > > functions should return 0 such that changing the prototype doesn't > > > > > > > change behaviour of individual drivers. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'd rather have seen these called out as simply moving towards > > > > > > this second change as it feels wrong to deliberately not report an error > > > > > > so as to avoid repeated error messages! > > > > > > > > > > > > Meh, I don't care that strongly and you call out the real reason in each > > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > > > Series looks fine to me, but I'll leave the on list for a few days to let > > > > > others have time to take a look. > > > > > > > > > > Worth noting that some of these are crying out for use > > > > > of devm_add_action_or_reset() and getting rid of the remove functions > > > > > entirely now you've dropped the oddity of them returning non 0. > > > > > > > > > > Low hanging fruit for any newbies who want to do it, or maybe I will > > > > > if I get bored :) > > > > > > > > Series applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for > > > > 0-day to see if it can find anything we missed. > > > > > > They are in testing > > > (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=testing) > > > but not in togreg > > > (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=togreg). > > > > > > Not sure if that is how it's supposed to be? Only togreg seems to be in > > > next. > > Yup. That's intentional because I don't rebase the togreg branch unless > > something goes wrong when it hits next. The intent being it's a stable > > base to build upon. Normally there is a delay of up to a week to let > > 0-day take a look at testing and for me to happen to get time sat at > > the right computer, but sometimes it's longer :( > > > > Right now I'm waiting on a pull request being picked up by Greg KH, > > after which I'll fast forward the togreg branch as I have some patches > > waiting to be queued up that are dependent on things that have reached > > char-misc-next via other paths. > > Not sure I understood that correctly. Do you let Greg pull the togreg > branch? If you instead let him pull tags, you don't have to wait in such > a situation to apply new patches to a for-next branch. (Or just don't > use "togreg" for both, sending PRs to Greg and put patches into next.) The pull request is indeed for a tag. I could expose what is currently only out as testing to next, but that means pushing it out as togreg. As a general rule (the vast majority of the time) I do not rebase togreg once I've pushed that out to kernel.org. (Testing gets rebased all the time but hopefully the name makes it clear it's not stable!) I need to rebase my local togreg currently to get some fixes that are in Greg's tree, but not mine. If I do that before he's take my pull things will look unecessarily messy in the history. It's one of those silly corner cases where by waiting a little while I can hide the mess under the covers :) > > > Unfortunately I'm doubtful about whether I can squeeze in a second > > pull request this cycle, so they may get queued up for next cycle. > > A bit of bad timing :( > > It's not a big problem for me. There is still much to do (also a bit in > drivers/iio) before I tackle the final bits of my quest and actually > change struct i2c_driver (and so depend on these patches having hit > mainline). The only downside for you is, that you might have to endure > me asking again for the state of these patches ;-) > > Thanks for your feedback. Compared to pinging repeatedly and getting no > maintainer reply, knowing about your problems is much appreciated. > > Best regards and have a nice week-end, Likewise! Jonathan > Uwe >
