linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/5] ptp_ocp: use dev_err

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: <YqMmZBEsCv+f19se@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:09:24 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/5] ptp_ocp: use dev_err_probe()

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:45:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed,  8 Jun 2022 15:03:54 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Simplify the error path in ->probe() and unify message format a bit
> > by using dev_err_probe().
> 
> Let's not do this. I get that using dev_err_probe() even without
> possibility of -EPROBE_DEFER is acceptable, but converting
> existing drivers is too much IMO. Acceptable < best practice.

Noted.

I have just checked that if you drop this patch the rest will be still
applicable. If you have no objections, can you apply patches 2-5 then?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko