[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210506061121.3flqmvm4jok6zj5z@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 08:11:21 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, jirislaby@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc/vio: make remove callback return void
Hi Dave,
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:27:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 22:14:49 +0200
>
> > The driver core ignores the return value of struct bus_type::remove()
> > because there is only little that can be done. To simplify the quest to
> > make this function return void, let struct vio_driver::remove() return
> > void, too. All users already unconditionally return 0, this commit makes
> > it obvious that returning an error code is a bad idea and should prevent
> > that future driver authors consider returning an error code.
> >
> > Note there are two nominally different implementations for a vio bus:
> > one in arch/sparc/kernel/vio.c and the other in
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vio.c. This patch only addresses the
> > former.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Thanks for your Ack. My expectation was that this patch will go via a
sparc tree. Does your Ack mean that you think it should take a different
path?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists