[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0812100928l2c75d373n7eba5aa0cc3882fd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:28:33 -0500
From: "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: "Julia Lawall" <julia@...u.dk>
Cc: dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from platform_driver remove functions
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus of
> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus
> unnecessary. The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert the
> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they return
> void. This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return type
> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that
> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new field,
> if one is available. The subsequent patches update some drivers to use the
> remove_new field.
why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ? you'll get a
warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure,
nor should you get a runtime failure ... and if your ultimate goal is
to drop the return value, then this would be better as you'd get
warnings for everything that needs converting. plus, once .remove is
gone, you're going to have to post another series of patches to
convert .remove_new back to .remove ...
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists