linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] iio: accel: Support Kionix/ROHM KX022A accelerometer

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: <YzRU9aRNReonSqbg@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:06:45 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
        Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@...il.com>,
        Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Mutanen, Mikko" <Mikko.Mutanen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        "Haikola, Heikki" <Heikki.Haikola@...rohmeurope.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] iio: accel: Support Kionix/ROHM KX022A
 accelerometer

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 02:14:14PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 9/22/22 20:03, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:45:35 +0300

...

> > > +		dev_err(dev, "no regmap\n");
> > 
> > Use dev_err_probe() for all dev_err() stuff in probe paths.
> > It ends up cleaner and we don't care about the tiny overhead
> > of checking for deferred.
> 
> This one bothers me a bit. It just does not feel correct to pass -EINVAL for
> the dev_err_probe() so the dev_err_probe() can check if -EINVAL !=
> -EPROBE_DEFER. I do understand perfectly well the consistent use of
> dev_err_probe() for all cases where we get an error-code from a function and
> return it - but using dev_err_probe() when we hard-code the return value in
> code calling the dev_err_probe() does not feel like "the right thing to do"
> (tm).
> 
> Eg, I agree that
> return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "bar");
> is nice even if we know the function that gave us the "ret" never requests
> defer (as that can change some day).
> 
> However, I don't like issuing:
> return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "bar");

This case specifically was added into documentation by 7065f92255bb ("driver
core: Clarify that dev_err_probe() is OK even w/out -EPROBE_DEFER").

> Well, please let me know if you think the dev_err_probe() should be used
> even in cases where we hard code the return to something...

And this should be, of course, maintainer's decision.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko