On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 05:51:24PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 08:39:51AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * Don't bother propagating errors. We're just doing cleanup, and the caller > > > + * ignores the return value anyway. > > > > Shouldn't we drop the int return from the function declaration, then? > > > > (Is that also a cleanup that's you're working on?) > > We can't drop it without changing the f_ops->release signature and > updates to the many instance of it. That would still be worthwhile > project, but it's something for someone who is better at scripting > than me. Yeahhhhh... at this point it's a giant treewide change that just doesn't seem worth it. Maybe save it for someone who wants to make a subtle but important behavior change and needs a type signature change to stand in as an idiot light for out of tree modules. :P Anyway I think this is fine, let's merge this series Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> --D
