> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:52 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 18:08, James Bottomley >> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:24 +0200, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote: >> >> > This patch fixes the following compilation warning: >> >> > >> >> > CC [M] drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.o >> >> > drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c:314: warning: initialization from >> incompatible >> >> > pointer type >> >> >> >> Any news about this one? I think this patch should go via linux-scsi, >> >> unless you would be insisting on pushing it via linux-mips, in which >> case >> >> I'll politely bug Ralf about it. :) >> > >> > Looks OK for the local change. >> > >> > Globally, having driver->remove and platform_driver->remove return int >> > instead of void looks wrong. Particularly when the only use cases are >> > in drivers/base/ and they all ignore the return code. >> > >> > Greg and Kay ... shouldn't we simply redefine the return values for >> the >> > remove methods in these structures to return void (and thus match the >> > use case)? >> >> Aren't there many many drivers across the tree, using the "int remove" >> version? > > Yes ... since it's a function prototype. > > However, if drivers/base simply discards the return, it's a trap we > shouldn't be setting. Hmmm, it does look like the return value is discarded, please see drivers/base/dd.c::__device_release_driver() for details. Does this not deserve a good cleanup? Dmitri > > James > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
