linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/30] clk: scpi: Convert to platform remove callback returning void

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 17:31:14 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/30] clk: scpi: Convert to platform remove callback returning void

Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2023-03-16 08:48:50)
> Hello,
> 
> [put the clk maintainers in To:]
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:01:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K�nig wrote:
> > > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> > > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> > > returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> > > and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> > > quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> > > quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> > > void.
> > > 
> > > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > > callback to the void returning variant.
> > >
> > 
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> > 
> > Let me know if you want me to pick up instead.
> 
> Honestly I don't know. I expected that the series is applied completely
> via the clk maintainers, but the samsung patch was already taken
> individually.
> 
> Michael and Stephen: It would probably be helpful if you shared your
> thoughs about this. For me both options are fine.
> 

I will pick up whatever isn't picked by SoC maintainers.