linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] SCSI: fix the return type of the remove() method in sgiwd93.

To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI: fix the return type of the remove() method in sgiwd93.c
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:00:00 -0600
Cc: Vorobiev Dmitri <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
In-reply-to: <ac3eb2510812031051k9d9312bma119bfae35afc230@mail.gmail.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1227140357-29921-1-git-send-email-dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi> <46353.88.114.226.209.1228321494.squirrel@webmail.movial.fi> <1228324123.5551.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <ac3eb2510812030952k5b57a9c7qb68e3684de170d75@mail.gmail.com> <1228327306.5551.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <35647.88.114.226.209.1228329736.squirrel@webmail.movial.fi> <ac3eb2510812031051k9d9312bma119bfae35afc230@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 19:51 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 19:42, Vorobiev Dmitri <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi> 
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:52 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 18:08, James Bottomley
> >>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:24 +0200, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote:
> >>> >> > This patch fixes the following compilation warning:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >   CC [M]  drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.o
> >>> >> > drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c:314: warning: initialization from
> >>> incompatible
> >>> >> > pointer type
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Any news about this one? I think this patch should go via linux-scsi,
> >>> >> unless you would be insisting on pushing it via linux-mips, in which
> >>> case
> >>> >> I'll politely bug Ralf about it. :)
> >>> >
> >>> > Looks OK for the local change.
> >>> >
> >>> > Globally, having driver->remove and platform_driver->remove return int
> >>> > instead of void looks wrong.  Particularly when the only use cases are
> >>> > in drivers/base/ and they all ignore the return code.
> >>> >
> >>> > Greg and Kay ... shouldn't we simply redefine the return values for
> >>> the
> >>> > remove methods in these structures to return void (and thus match the
> >>> > use case)?
> >>>
> >>> Aren't there many many drivers across the tree, using the "int remove"
> >>> version?
> >>
> >> Yes ... since it's a function prototype.
> >>
> >> However, if drivers/base simply discards the return, it's a trap we
> >> shouldn't be setting.
> >
> > Hmmm, it does look like the return value is discarded, please see
> > drivers/base/dd.c::__device_release_driver() for details.
> >
> > Does this not deserve a good cleanup?
> 
> Sure, it might be. If you want to patch hundreds of files, send
> patches to maintainers, patch drivers you can not even compile, we
> could do that.
> 
> We are already in the middle of a ~400 files "struct device" bus_id
> conversion, and only very few maintainers respond to these patches. We
> also never got any reply to the SCSI bus_id patch we sent weeks ago.
> :)

When did you send it?  Searching the scsi archives on bus_id produces no
results, what was the subject line?

James



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>