On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:50:05AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:55:24AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> >> Upon submitting a patch for mwifiex [1] it was discussed whether this >> >> callback function could fail. To keep things simple there is no need >> >> for the error code so the driver can do the task synchronous or not >> >> without worries. Currently the device driver core already ignores the >> >> return value so changing it to void. >> >> >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10231933/ >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <aspr...@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> include/linux/device.h | 5 ++++- >> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h >> >> index b093405..f08c25b 100644 >> >> --- a/include/linux/device.h >> >> +++ b/include/linux/device.h >> >> @@ -256,6 +256,9 @@ enum probe_type { >> >> * automatically. >> >> * @pm: Power management operations of the device which >> >> matched >> >> * this driver. >> >> + * @coredump: Called when sysfs entry is written to. The device >> >> driver >> >> + * is expected to call the dev_coredump API resulting in a >> >> + * uevent. >> >> * @p: Driver core's private data, no one other than the >> >> driver >> >> * core can touch this. >> >> * >> >> @@ -287,7 +290,7 @@ struct device_driver { >> >> const struct attribute_group **groups; >> >> >> >> const struct dev_pm_ops *pm; >> >> - int (*coredump) (struct device *dev); >> >> + void (*coredump) (struct device *dev); >> > >> > Isn't this going to cause build warnings now? Are there no users of >> > this callback function yet? >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> I submitted driver patches for the 4.17 kernel and from that >> discussion we concluded it would be good to change to void return >> type. So those driver patches were dropped. The caller of the callback >> in drivers/base/dd.c does not use the return value so from that side >> there is no issue. So my motivation for asking to consider this for >> 4.16 is so I can resubmit the driver patches for 4.17 if there is >> still time before the merge window. > > It's too late for 4.16 for this, and I would queue it up in my tree now > but I don't want to cause any build warnings in linux-next from it. So > how about I submit something like this right after 4.17-rc1 is out, > where the function signature is changed _and_ all definitions of that > function are changed at the same time to keep everything sane at once? > > Can you send me such a patch right before -rc1 is out base on Linus's > tree? That should give everyone enough time to get the things merged, > right? > > Or is there no in-flight patches to use this yet, and I can queue it up > now for -rc1 as no build warnings will happen?
Hi Greg, Are we good regarding this patch. I have assured there are not in-flight patches. Regards, Arend
