linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] Add PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC

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: <20200925083942.GW3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:39:42 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, lee.jones@...aro.org,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, songjun.Wu@...el.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@...el.com, qi-ming.wu@...el.com,
        rahul.tanwar.linux@...il.com, rtanwar@...linear.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] Add PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:16:59PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:23:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:55:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

...

> > True. And above dev_err_probe() is not needed.
> 
> You argue that dev_err_probe() gives no benefit as
> lgm_reset_control_deassert won't return -EPROBE_DEFER, right?
> 
> Still I consider it a useful function because
> 
>  a) I (as an author or as a reviewer) don't need to think if the
>     failing function might return -EPROBE_DEFER now or in the future.
>     dev_err_probe does the right thing even for functions that don't
>     return -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
>  b) With dev_err_probe() I can accomplish things in a single line that
>     need two lines when open coding it.
> 
>  c) dev_err_probe() emits the symbolic error name without having to
>     resort to %pe + ERR_PTR.
> 
>  d) Using dev_err_probe() for all error paths gives a consistency that I
>     like with a maintainer's hat on.
> 
> So I still want to request using dev_err_probe() in all error paths.

As a maintainer it is your choice. I really would like to see more consensus
among maintainers, some are insisting of what I said, some, like you, on the
opposite, some hate that API and some simply don't care.

And on top of that I saw already use of API without taking returned value into
account.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko