On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 06:15:51PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:25 -0300 Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from geraldogabriel@xxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:03:33PM +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote: > >> 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
