Hello, On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 08:23:18PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > > > wlcore_remove() returned zero unconditionally. With that converted to > > return void instead, the wl12xx and wl18xx driver can be converted to > > .remove_new trivially. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl12xx/main.c | 6 +++--- > > drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 6 ++---- > > drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > wireless patches go to wireless-next, not net-next. But no need to > resend because of this. So for the next patch to drivers/net/wireless: I should write "[PATCH wireless-next]" in the Subject? Do the other special rules for net-next apply to wireless-next, too? (E.g. that I must not send patches for -next during the merge window and the rules about comments.) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
