linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and parport_register

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]

Message-ID: <20150408122737.GK10964@mwanda>
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:27:37 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	Willy Tarreau <willy@...a-x.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and
 parport_register_driver

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 05:20:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:38:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
> > patches doesn't work.
> yes, if the first patch is reverted for any reason all the others need
> to be reverted also. so then everything in one single patch?

The problem is that patch 1/1 breaks the build.  The rule is that we
should be able to apply part of a patch series and nothing breaks.  If
we apply the patch series out of order than things break that's our
problem, yes.  But if we apply only 1/1 and it breaks, that's a problem
with the series.

> > 
> > 2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
> > we would bail.  Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem
> > like it will simplify the driver code very much.  But I can also see
> > your point.  Hm...

My other issue with this patch series which is related to #2 is that
it's not clear that anyone is checking the return value and doing
correct things with it.

Hopefully, when we use the attach_ret() approach then it will be more
clear if/how the return value is useful.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/