linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] devres: Add devm_remove_action

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: <Z7dSMK3tHC0Aq-GT@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:02:56 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] devres: Add devm_remove_action_optional() helper

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:40:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:30:07PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:44:59PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > +/* Same as devm_remove_action(), but doesn't WARN() if action wasn't added before */
> > > > +static inline
> > > > +void devm_remove_action_optional(struct device *dev, void (*action)(void *), void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = devm_remove_action_nowarn(dev, action, data);
> > > > +	if (ret == -ENOENT)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	WARN_ON(ret);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Trying to wrap my head around this one, can't the user simply do
> > > 
> > > 	if (devm_is_action_added())
> > > 		devm_remove_action/_nowarn();
> > 
> > Hmm... Actually it sounds like a good point. I will check
> > (and I like the idea of dropping this patch).
> 
> And perhaps
> 
> s/devm_is_action_added/devm_action_is_added
> 
> But whichever you think _is best_ ;)

I thought about that and that's why I would like to stick to the my variant.

Thanks for the review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko