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

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>
Cc: "Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] PCI: aardvark: Convert to platform remove callback returning void
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 22:08:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230321210831.h2asxfs5h7deh6eo@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230321193604.7iopueamqtaqrlfi@pali>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2563 bytes --]

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:
> > 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/
	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221216182524.s6a4uihgavji7bti@pali/

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]