linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: remove unneeded return value of cgroup_rm_cftypes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:02:41 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
CC:     <hannes@...xchg.org>, <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: remove unneeded return value of
 cgroup_rm_cftypes_locked()

On 2023/7/12 5:40, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:00:58AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2023/7/11 3:40, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 03:38:56PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> The return value of cgroup_rm_cftypes_locked() is always 0. So remove
>>>> it to simplify the code. No functional change intended.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> Applied to cgroup/for-6.6. Please feel free to follow up with the comment
>>> addition Michal suggested.
>>
>> Should I send a v2 patch or a separate patch? Both is fine to me.
> 
> Please send a separate patch.

I see. But since Michal is meant adding the reasoning to the commit message, it seems
a v2 patch is required. Or could you help modify the commit message? It should looks
like:

"
The return value of cgroup_rm_cftypes_locked() is always 0 and swallowing
errors on removal is fine because cgroup_addrm_files() won't fail at
removal. So remove return value to simplify the code. No functional
change intended.
"

Thanks a lot.