linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] iio: light: stk3310: handle all remove logic with devm callbacks

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: <mlvzaskgxqjfu6yiib2u7m3pczsifsluc4mqnzy6w3xzxblvm6@xrxvvruzftn2>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 13:38:39 -0500
From: Aren <aren@...cevolution.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, 
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, 
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, 
	Kaustabh Chakraborty <kauschluss@...root.org>, Barnabás Czémán <trabarni@...il.com>, 
	Ondrej Jirman <megi@....cz>, 
	Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] iio: light: stk3310: handle all remove logic with
 devm callbacks

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:32:08AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Aren Moynihan wrote:
> > Using devm callbacks helps to make the ordering of probe / remove
> > operations easier to reason about and removes some duplicate code
> > between the probe error path and driver remove.
> 
> Where is SoB?

Oops that got lost in a rebase

> ...
> 
> > +	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&client->dev, stk3310_set_state_disable, data);
> 
> Why not simply 'dev' as in below call?

I was trying to avoid refactoring the entire function to replace
&client->dev with dev, I'll add a patch for that to the next revision.

> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to register cleanup function\n");
> 
> ...
> 
> > -	mutex_init(&data->lock);
> > +	devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &data->lock);
> 
> Missed error check, otherwise what's the point?
> 
> 
> Also can add a temporary variable for 'dev'.

Yup, fixing... I need to read the docs / function type more carefully
sometimes.

Thanks
 - Aren