Re: [PATCH 01/15] PCI: aardvark: Convert to platform remove callback returning void

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:36:04PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:

On Tuesday 21 March 2023 20:31:54 Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

quoted

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.

Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
callback to the void returning variant.

There are more important fixes for this driver waiting on the list, so I
do not see reason for sending such unimportant change for this driver
which does not fix any issue. I would suggest to put this change at the
end of the pending queue of aardvark patches to prevent any rebasing of
the important fixes patches and possible merge conflicts.

I read some frustration out of your reply. However I don't think I'm to
blame for anything here. A recommendation to check floating patches on
the respective mailing list before sending out a patch would be news to
me, and I'd consider such a requirement a too big burden on submitters.

Browsing a bit in the linux-pci archives I see I'm not the first to get
a similar reply by you[1]. For me as a contributor who rarely does PCI
stuff such a feedback is not exactly welcoming and I'd wish for me and
others a more friendly interaction. Instead of calling other people's
patches unimportant and blaming them for sending cleanup patches, I
suggest you resend the patches you care about and highlight why they are
important. At least if I were the responsible maintainer, you'd have
more success with such a strategy.

Having said that, I don't have a problem if the aardvark patch is
postponed in favour of some more important changes. If a conflict occurs
during application, I happily adapt my patch and send it at a later
time. In such a case, just tell me, ideally by making the problem
reproduce on next.

Best regards
Uwe

[1] I found:
	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221207075750.6usm4mgejtpcrktw@pali/ (local)
	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221216182524.s6a4uihgavji7bti@pali/ (local)

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