[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081210212659.GA6132@zarina>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:26:59 +0300
From: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To: Vorobiev Dmitri <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
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 08:03:56PM +0200, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:26:26 +0100 (CET)
> > Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
> >>
> >> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus
> >> of
> >> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored
> >
> > Currently
>
> Are there really any plans about actually using the return value?
It's often used by the drivers, but currently not handled by
the subsystem. For example, _remove() callback might return -EBUSY
or -EAGAIN, which means that whoever called the _remove() should
try later.
For example see drivers/mfd/asic3.c. The driver registers GPIO
chips, on _remove() it *tries* to unregister these chips, but
it could fail (when provided GPIOs are in use by somebody -- it
might be in-kernel users, or sysfs users).
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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