[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230105103114.6c1ee8ec@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:31:14 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ezchip: Switch to some devm_ function to
simplify code
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:27:00 +0100 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> My main point is in the cover letter. I look for feed-back to know if
> patches like that are welcomed. Only the first, Only the second, Both or
> None.
Sorry, missed that.
> These patches (at least 1 and 2) can be seen as an RFC for net
> MAINTAINERS, to see if there is any interest in:
> - axing useless netif_napi_del() calls, when free_netdev() is called
> just after. (patch 1)
I think it'd be too much noise. I'd vote no.
> - simplifying code with axing the error handling path of the probe
> and the remove function in favor of using devm_ functions (patch 2)
I believe DaveM was historically opposed to those helpers in general.
I think we should avoid pure conversions, unless they are part of
development of new features or fix bugs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists