On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 06:15:51PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:25 -0300 Geraldo Nascimento [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from geraldogabriel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:03:33PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote:

quoted

When `devm_add_action_or_reset()` fails, it is due to a failed memory
allocation and will thus return `-ENOMEM`. `dev_err_probe()` doesn't do
anything when error is `-ENOMEM`. Therefore, remove the useless call to
`dev_err_probe()` when `devm_add_action_or_reset()` fails, and just
return the value instead.

Hi Waqar,

thank you for the patch. However I personally advise you to split the
patches per-file and remember to then precede each individual patch
subject with the proper subsystem and driver touched.

While this looks like a nit-pick, it really isn't, and my suggestion
will make reviewing much more easier and you'll get your Reviewed-by's
and Acked-by's much more smoothly.

The cover-letter should probably be preceded by "treewide" instead of
a specific subsystem.

Thank you for the suggestion Geraldo! I will do that (as also answered
to David).

You're welcome Waqar! Note that David's suggestion is even smarter than
mine: instead of patch-bombing lots of maintainers with changes unrelated
to their subsystems through a treewide change, he suggests you split the
patch into one series per subsystem. This is indeed advisable.

Thanks,
Geraldo Nascimento