Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Message-ID: <61daa1c69836caffd63e3c2d9bb2e62298f1a04a.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] ipmi: kcs_bmc: Make remove_device() callback
 return void
From:   Andrew Jeffery <andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
Cc:     minyard@acm.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aladyshev22@gmail.com,
        jk@codeconstruct.com.au
Date:   Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:24:10 +1030
In-Reply-To: <20231103144311.000008f1@Huawei.com>
References: <20231103061522.1268637-1-andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>
         <20231103061522.1268637-5-andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>
         <20231103144311.000008f1@Huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 14:43 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri,  3 Nov 2023 16:45:16 +1030
> Andrew Jeffery <andrew@codeconstruct.com.au> wrote:
>=20
> > Don't pretend there's a valid failure path when there's not.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>
>=20
> Whilst I agree returning an error code is pointless, it is perhaps
> useful to make sure there is a dev_err() or similar in the paths
> now that you've remove the one at the call site.
>=20
> Minor point and up to you if you want to or not.

No, that's reasonable. I'll address this in v2.

Andrew