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]

Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 15:57:55 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Cc: linuxpps@...enneenne.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps: clients: gpio: Convert to platform remove callback
 returning void

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 02:26:48PM +0200, 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.)

In the meantime you sent an Ack to my patch. Does that mean I can/should
include this patch in the series changing struct platform_driver that I
intend to send to Greg after the upcoming merge window closes?

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)