A couple of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional changes intended.

v4:
- rebased on top of the latest vanilla (v6.9-rcX)

v3:
- rebased on top of driver-core-testing (Philipp)
- added tags (Philipp)

v2:
- fixed plural vs. singular "to have" (Philipp)

Andy Shevchenko (2):
  devres: Switch to use dev_err_probe() for unification
  devres: Don't use "proxy" headers

 lib/devres.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096

On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 13:46 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> A couple of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional changes intended.

But it seems that since v3 my "Reviewed-by"s have disappeared. Is that
intentional, should I look through it again?

P.

> 
> v4:
> - rebased on top of the latest vanilla (v6.9-rcX)
> 
> v3:
> - rebased on top of driver-core-testing (Philipp)
> - added tags (Philipp)
> 
> v2:
> - fixed plural vs. singular "to have" (Philipp)
> 
> Andy Shevchenko (2):
>   devres: Switch to use dev_err_probe() for unification
>   devres: Don't use "proxy" headers
> 
>  lib/devres.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 13:46 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > A couple of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional changes intended.
> 
> But it seems that since v3 my "Reviewed-by"s have disappeared. Is that
> intentional, should I look through it again?

Oops, it's utterly unintentional, sorry. I haven't done any changes.
It is basically a repetition of v2 (i.e. based on your code).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 13:46 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > A couple of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional changes intended.
> > 
> > But it seems that since v3 my "Reviewed-by"s have disappeared. Is
> > that
> > intentional, should I look through it again?
> 
> Oops, it's utterly unintentional, sorry. I haven't done any changes.
> It is basically a repetition of v2 (i.e. based on your code).
> 

Alright, no problem – feel free to re-apply it

Reviewed-by: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@redhat.com>