Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 7 Apr 2018 09:49:14 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH for-4.16 2/3] drivers: change struct device_driver::coredump() return type to void |
| |
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:35:35PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > Op vr 6 apr. 2018 4:46 PM schreef Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: > > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 12:13:38PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:50:05AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:55:24AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > >> >> Upon submitting a patch for mwifiex [1] it was discussed whether this > > > >> >> callback function could fail. To keep things simple there is no need > > > >> >> for the error code so the driver can do the task synchronous or not > > > >> >> without worries. Currently the device driver core already ignores the > > > >> >> return value so changing it to void. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10231933/ > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <aspriel@gmail.com> > > > >> >> --- > > > >> >> include/linux/device.h | 5 ++++- > > > >> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> >> > > > >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h > > > >> >> index b093405..f08c25b 100644 > > > >> >> --- a/include/linux/device.h > > > >> >> +++ b/include/linux/device.h > > > >> >> @@ -256,6 +256,9 @@ enum probe_type { > > > >> >> * automatically. > > > >> >> * @pm: Power management operations of the device which matched > > > >> >> * this driver. > > > >> >> + * @coredump: Called when sysfs entry is written to. The device driver > > > >> >> + * is expected to call the dev_coredump API resulting in a > > > >> >> + * uevent. > > > >> >> * @p: Driver core's private data, no one other than the driver > > > >> >> * core can touch this. > > > >> >> * > > > >> >> @@ -287,7 +290,7 @@ struct device_driver { > > > >> >> const struct attribute_group **groups; > > > >> >> > > > >> >> const struct dev_pm_ops *pm; > > > >> >> - int (*coredump) (struct device *dev); > > > >> >> + void (*coredump) (struct device *dev); > > > >> > > > > >> > Isn't this going to cause build warnings now? Are there no users of > > > >> > this callback function yet? > > > >> > > > >> Hi Greg, > > > >> > > > >> I submitted driver patches for the 4.17 kernel and from that > > > >> discussion we concluded it would be good to change to void return > > > >> type. So those driver patches were dropped. The caller of the callback > > > >> in drivers/base/dd.c does not use the return value so from that side > > > >> there is no issue. So my motivation for asking to consider this for > > > >> 4.16 is so I can resubmit the driver patches for 4.17 if there is > > > >> still time before the merge window. > > > > > > > > It's too late for 4.16 for this, and I would queue it up in my tree now > > > > but I don't want to cause any build warnings in linux-next from it. So > > > > how about I submit something like this right after 4.17-rc1 is out, > > > > where the function signature is changed _and_ all definitions of that > > > > function are changed at the same time to keep everything sane at once? > > > > > > > > Can you send me such a patch right before -rc1 is out base on Linus's > > > > tree? That should give everyone enough time to get the things merged, > > > > right? > > > > > > > > Or is there no in-flight patches to use this yet, and I can queue it up > > > > now for -rc1 as no build warnings will happen? > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Are we good regarding this patch. I have assured there are not > > > in-flight patches. > > > > All of my stuff is now in Linus's tree, so check there :) > > Hi Greg, > > That should have been obvious to me with merge window. Anyway, I > checked and it seems this particular patch got lost somehow. The other > two patches in the series are in Linus's tree. There was only one > in-flight patch in bt-next and had it removed with you on Cc:. > Probably got lost in your daily email storm :-p
Ah, sorry, now I remember. Yeah, this is long-gone from my tree, care to resend this and I'll get it merged after 4.17-rc1 is out?
thanks,
greg k-h
|  |