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: <f2f656af-cd63-4c3e-be65-82c65967570c@enneenne.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:03:53 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps: clients: gpio: Convert to platform remove callback
 returning void

On 12/04/24 14:26, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> [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.)

Sorry. I forgot to add Greg Kroah-Hartman into CC. :-(

I've just resent the acked-by mail.

Ciao,

Rodolfo

-- 
GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver                          giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems                     phone:  +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming