Greg KH wrote: > 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. Still, what about the whole series? What do you think about int->void migration for the remove() callback? Thanks, Dmitri > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- 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
