Am 03.02.2015 13:10, schrieb Tejun Heo: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:36:01AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > ... >> @@ -4215,7 +4215,9 @@ static int mv_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> clk_disable_unprepare(hpriv->port_clks[port]); >> clk_put(hpriv->port_clks[port]); >> } >> - phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]); >> + rc = phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]); >> + if (rc) >> + return rc; > > So, this is a removal function which is ignoring failure from turning > off phy, which seems like the right thing to do. The same thing with > suspend routines. If something auxliary which isn't strictly > necessary in reaching suspend state fails, the failure should be > ignored. > > Running static code analysis to locate trivial irregularities and > performing identity transformations is fine, even great, but you're > changing the behavior here without actually understanding what's going > on. Please don't do these things automatically. > > Thanks. > maybe this can be changed into (void) phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]); that would tell the compiler and other readers that this is intentional. -- 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
