Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 May 2024 15:57:55 +0200 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pps: clients: gpio: Convert to platform remove callback returning void |
| |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 02:26:48PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > [Cc: += linuxpps@ml.enneenne.com] > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:57:29AM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > > On 08/03/24 09:51, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes > > > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by > > > returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart > > > from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks. > > > > > > To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return > > > void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to > > > .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers > > > are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove(). > > > > > > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove > > > callback to the void returning variant. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > > Acked-by: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com> > > The MAINTAINERS entry for drivers/pps lists you as single maintainer. > Who is expected to pick up this patch given that you "only" send an ack > but didn't pick up the patch? (Or only picked it up in a tree not > included in next.)
In the meantime you sent an Ack to my patch. Does that mean I can/should include this patch in the series changing struct platform_driver that I intend to send to Greg after the upcoming merge window closes?
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |