On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:36:04PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2023 20:31:54 Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > 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 (mostly) ignored > > 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. > > > > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove > > callback to the void returning variant. > > There are more important fixes for this driver waiting on the list, so I > do not see reason for sending such unimportant change for this driver > which does not fix any issue. I would suggest to put this change at the > end of the pending queue of aardvark patches to prevent any rebasing of > the important fixes patches and possible merge conflicts. I read some frustration out of your reply. However I don't think I'm to blame for anything here. A recommendation to check floating patches on the respective mailing list before sending out a patch would be news to me, and I'd consider such a requirement a too big burden on submitters. Browsing a bit in the linux-pci archives I see I'm not the first to get a similar reply by you[1]. For me as a contributor who rarely does PCI stuff such a feedback is not exactly welcoming and I'd wish for me and others a more friendly interaction. Instead of calling other people's patches unimportant and blaming them for sending cleanup patches, I suggest you resend the patches you care about and highlight why they are important. At least if I were the responsible maintainer, you'd have more success with such a strategy. Having said that, I don't have a problem if the aardvark patch is postponed in favour of some more important changes. If a conflict occurs during application, I happily adapt my patch and send it at a later time. In such a case, just tell me, ideally by making the problem reproduce on next. Best regards Uwe [1] I found: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221207075750.6usm4mgejtpcrktw@pali/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221216182524.s6a4uihgavji7bti@pali/ -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
