Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:01:17 +0200
From:   Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] wifi: ti/wlcore: Convert to platform remove
 callback returning void
Message-ID: <20230912200117.5ygpaucixihppg65@pengutronix.de>
References: <20230912171249.755901-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <87sf7jcnll.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ebwt7imbll6jyb7y"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87sf7jcnll.fsf@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk


--ebwt7imbll6jyb7y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 08:23:18PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
>=20
> > 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 (mostly) ignored
> > 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.
> >
> > wlcore_remove() returned zero unconditionally. With that converted to
> > return void instead, the wl12xx and wl18xx driver can be converted to
> > .remove_new trivially.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl12xx/main.c   | 6 +++---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c   | 2 +-
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c   | 6 ++----
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h | 2 +-
> >  4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>=20
> wireless patches go to wireless-next, not net-next. But no need to
> resend because of this.

So for the next patch to drivers/net/wireless: I should write "[PATCH
wireless-next]" in the Subject? Do the other special rules for net-next
apply to wireless-next, too? (E.g. that I must not send patches for
-next during the merge window and the rules about comments.)

Best regards
Uwe

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

--ebwt7imbll6jyb7y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmUAw4wACgkQj4D7WH0S
/k7zQwgAj3eUZ0jf3+FFz8zPoIlE9CSdX0aoTeRvhCunDnnVQTQrAwxfUZbNin7p
A7qPEwr6CFh8V0HtOY9X2vOuqIqRkBeL9HoSzgb/AlJbKpgs89yWZjeVkp2jutTc
zBVGWBA/LyX5ihs095B6BnoDPqMtCmycQJmX2ofceG7DjEzvL33lHrflMF5Bb9Eu
pAd03c5lJ7blUZbVlIexih20TWBDGpzxW7SzWr/G34ua+FjCQoLDbw+Zd9JFOABW
eotxl73BbFSobXoyUDhVHNdGAcxbt0Xb0mZfPloImXj79bN62kBRlCXtLXF43ytm
s5W5ABjH20Y8nxmPklwyA9LPYc7pfQ==
=otqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ebwt7imbll6jyb7y--