Re: [PATCH 45/62] mtd: rawnand: r852: Stop using nand_release()

[Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/11/2020 04:10 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:

>>> This helper is not very useful and very often people get confused:
>>> they use nand_release() instead of nand_cleanup().
>>>
>>> Let's stop using nand_release() by calling mtd_device_unregister() and
>>> nand_cleanup() directly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c | 6 ++++--
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c
>>> index 77774250fb11..f865e3a47b01 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c
>>> @@ -651,7 +651,8 @@ static int r852_register_nand_device(struct r852_device *dev)
>>>   	dev->card_registered = 1;
>>>   	return 0;
>>>   error3:
>>> -	nand_release(dev->chip);
>>> +	WARN_ON(mtd_device_unregister(nand_to_mtd(dev->chip)));  
>>
>>     Sometimes you declare a variable to receive the result, sometimes (more seldom) you don't... What guides you?
> 
> Absolutely. The logic (if any) was:
> 
> Use "ret", unless I think it does not fit very well the driver's style
> or the location where I put it. So in the end, as I consider that both
> are totally fine, it's a bit mixed and the choice very personnal. Do you
> think it is a problem?

   No, I was doubtful about the one-time evaluation of the WARN_ON()'s 1st argument
but then realized that it's taking care of...

> Thanks,
> Miquèl

MBR, Sergei

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/