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: <qqk4rbx6wxr7vofepk63yvuimavafbiy2srkqx2zvl2kxttlrk@axpphmdxffis>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:37:56 -0500
From: Aren <aren@...cevolution.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	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 Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 01:38:39PM -0500, Aren kirjoitti:
> > 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:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	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.
> 
> I'm not talking about refactoring, I'm talking only about the lines that you
> have touched / added.

Ah right, this one makes sense, my comment should have been on the next
patch in this series which is a little more complex. For that patch it
seemed inconsistent to use dev only in new code and mix it with calls
using &client->dev.

 - Aren