linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pps: clients: gpio: 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]

Message-ID: <4iii7uxyfovs6ntm7hs2w546k3upbhkepgzxarjk4wnlqmeern@sh6gkyuiqpjs>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:26:48 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de, 
	linuxpps@...enneenne.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps: clients: gpio: Convert to platform remove callback
 returning void

[Cc: += linuxpps@...enneenne.com]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:57:29AM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On 08/03/24 09:51, Uwe Kleine-König 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 ignored (apart
> > from emitting a warning) 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. Eventually after all drivers
> > are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
> > 
> > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > callback to the void returning variant.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>

The MAINTAINERS entry for drivers/pps lists you as single maintainer.
Who is expected to pick up this patch given that you "only" send an ack
but didn't pick up the patch? (Or only picked it up in a tree not
included in next.)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)