Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:29:46 +0300 (EAT)
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
cc:     Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@gmail.com>, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        airlied@linux.ie, mripard@kernel.org,
        maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, tzimmermann@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] drm: convert the drm_driver.debugfs_init() hook
 to return void.
In-Reply-To: <20200227122313.GB896418@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.99999.375.2002271528310.19554@wambui>
References: <20200227120232.19413-1-wambui.karugax@gmail.com> <20200227120232.19413-3-wambui.karugax@gmail.com> <20200227122313.GB896418@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (LNX 375 2019-10-29)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 03:02:13PM +0300, Wambui Karuga wrote:
>> As a result of commit 987d65d01356 (drm: debugfs: make
>> drm_debugfs_create_files() never fail) and changes to various debugfs
>> functions in drm/core and across various drivers, there is no need for
>> the drm_driver.debugfs_init() hook to have a return value. Therefore,
>> declare it as void.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  include/drm/drm_drv.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_drv.h b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>> index 97109df5beac..c6ae888c672b 100644
>> --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
>> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ struct drm_driver {
>>  	 *
>>  	 * Allows drivers to create driver-specific debugfs files.
>>  	 */
>> -	int (*debugfs_init)(struct drm_minor *minor);
>> +	void (*debugfs_init)(struct drm_minor *minor);
>
>
> Doesn't this patch break the build, or at least, cause lots of build
> warnings to happen?
>
> Fixing it all up later is good, but I don't think you want to break
> things at this point in the series.
>
So, should it come last in the series? All functions that use this hook 
have been converted to void in the patchset.

thanks,
wambui karuga

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>