[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191104205914.GI30938@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:59:14 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB: mlx5: no need to check return value of
debugfs_create functions
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:41:41AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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.
>
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 62 +++++++---------------------
> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 9 +---
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> Note, I kind of need to take this through my tree now as I broke the
> build due to me changing the use of debugfs_create_atomic_t() in my
> tree and not noticing this being used here. Sorry about that, any
> objections?
I think it is fine, I don't forsee conflicts here at this point.
To be clear, the build is broken in your tree and in linux-next?
> And 0-day seems really broken to have missed this for the past months,
> ugh, I need to stop relying on it...
Yes, I've noticed it missing a lot of stuff now too. Not sure why
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists