linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Annotate dev_err_probe() with __must

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20200826141615.GN1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:16:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Annotate dev_err_probe() with
 __must_check

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:23:40PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 26.08.2020 12:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > We have got already new users of this API which interpret it differently
> > and miss the opportunity to optimize their code.
> >
> > In order to avoid similar cases in the future, annotate dev_err_probe()
> > with __must_check.
> 
> 
> There are many cases where __must_check can be annoying, for example:
> 
> ret = ...;
> 
> if (ret < 0) {
> 
>      dev_err_probe(...);
> 
>      goto cleanup;

Can be
	ret = dev_err_probe(...);

> }
> 
> 
> Or (less frequently):
> 
> ptr = ...;
> 
> if (IS_ERR(ptr)) {
> 
>      dev_err_probe(...);
> 
>      return ptr;

...which basically should be something like

	return dev_err_probe_ptr(...);

> }
> 
> 
> Of course in both cases one can add workarounds, but I am not sure what 
> is better.

Me neither, but definitely API in current state allows to make code suboptimal.
So, up to Greg and Rafael to decide.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko