On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:37:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:18, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote: > >>> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus > >>> of > >>> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus > >>> unnecessary. The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert > >>> the > >>> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they > >>> return > >>> void. This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return > >>> type > >>> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that > >>> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new > >>> field, > >>> if one is available. The subsequent patches update some drivers to use > >>> the > >>> remove_new field. > >> > >> why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ? > > > > Please see this email for the background: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/231 > > > >> you'll get a > >> warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure, > > > > ...unless you compile with -Werror, which frequently the case. > > anyone crazy enough to build with -Werror is crazy enough to send in a fix ;) Hm, have you noted that some arches have that flag enabled in their build? And it's not ok to add a couple of hundred build warnings to the system, sorry. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
