Hello Nicolas, [reordered the mail a bit to give understandable context.] On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 01:20:59PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Le vendredi 23 février 2024 à 13:19 -0500, Nicolas Dufresne a écrit : > > maybe its already been discussed but ... > > > > Le vendredi 23 février 2024 à 13:59 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit : > > > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes > > > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by > > > returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart > > > from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks. > > > > > > To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return > > > void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to > > > .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers > > > are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove(). > > > > What if we have another screw up ? remove_new_new ? Why not just remove the int > > across the tree instead ? Or perhaps its a two step plane ? > > Please ignore my comment, sorry for the noise. Is that an Ack? :-) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
