[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOtvUMdTC46+dNt9m5eU_JrRDKpKPTv74A6cDCC2yXM=-YkFEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:58:20 +0200
From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Yael Chemla <yael.chemla@...s.arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] crypto: ccrree: no need to check return value of
debugfs_create functions
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:37 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:58:22PM +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:14 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > > never do something different based on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > I get the part about not failing loading the driver just because some
> > debugs entry isn't available, but wont it be weird if
> > debugfs_create_dir() fails but debugfs_create_regset32() succeeds and
> > we suddenly have weird files in the debugfs root dir?
> > Not the end of the world of course but maybe it's better to avoid
> > trying to create the files if the directory is not available?
>
> See this patch to handle that theoretical issue:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190123130917.GZ4087@dhcp22.suse.cz/T/#me91cc3d16185be13d64f85c8477c543cbda9baf6
>
Ah, sorry. I've missed that.
Acked-By: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Thanks!
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
values of β will give rise to dom!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists