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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bd4799ab-9456-421a-8294-de6481543ad1@enneenne.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 09:41:45 +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 08/05/24 15:57, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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?

Yes.

Rodolfo

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