linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: Remove some dead code

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: <9535976d-1029-3668-4be4-c09068ccf84c@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 22:02:17 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@...il.com>,
        cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
        a.zummo@...ertech.it, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: Remove some dead code

Le 12/05/2021 à 18:13, Alexandre Belloni a écrit :
> On 10/05/2021 08:20:52-0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/05/2021 17:06, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2021 18:06:03-0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:59 AM Christophe JAILLET
>>>> <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following the recent conversations, I think it might make sense to do
>>>>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %pe\n", info->rtc_dev);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is right, but it should be done in another patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like to give it a try?
>>>>>
>>>> Sure, I'll have the patch ready to send it when I see yours on next.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to print anything at all? Who would use the output?
>>> Is anyone actually going to read it?
>>
>> If the RTC core does not print the message, it should be
>> dev_err_probe().  However the first is recently preferred - RTC core
>> should do it for all drivers.  I find such error messages useful - helps
>> easily spotting regressions via dmesg -l err.
>>
> 
> The only error path that will not print a message by default (it is
> dev_dbg) is when rtc-ops is NULL which I don't expect would regress
> anyway.
> 
> A better way to remove the dead code would be to switch to
> devm_rtc_allocate_device/devm_rtc_register_device.

I don't follow you here.
Isn't devm_rtc_device_register = devm_rtc_allocate_device + 
devm_rtc_register_device?

What would be the benefit for switch to the latter?


> And even better would
> be to take that opportunity to set range_min and range_max ;)

Maybe, but this goes beyond my knowledge.
I'll let someone else propose a patch for it.

CJ