linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: convert to devm_i2c_new_dummy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:06:03 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: convert to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device()

On 30/08/2019 15:00:35+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > > I'm confused because I already applied:
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92
> > > 
> > > The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure
> > > all in-kernel users use the API returning an ERRPTR. Mass conversion to
> > > the devm_ variant of the same function was too troublesome.
> > > 
> > > With another series, I wanted to remove superfluous error checking of
> > > i2c_unregister_device() because it is NULL-ptr safe, like here:
> > > 
> > > > > -	if (info->rtc)
> > > > > -		i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc);
> > > 
> > > But for these two RTC drivers, I figured moving to devm_* is way easier
> > > than fixing up the mass conversion result from coccinelle.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok so should I drop the previous patches and apply those instead?
> 
> Nope, they should be incremental, aren't they?
> 
No, your patches don't apply on top of rtc-next


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com