From: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
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-K?nig <[email protected]>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Hi Dave,
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:27:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
> 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-K?nig <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
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-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 08:11:21AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:27:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
> > 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-K?nig <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
>
> 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?
I'll pick it up, thanks.
greg k-h