linux-kernel - Re: [v4] dma-engine: sun4i: Use devm functions in probe()

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: <9ef781b0-8a63-42b7-91a2-fa8a8ea3c0b4@web.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:44:05 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
 Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>,
 Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v4] dma-engine: sun4i: Use devm functions in probe()

>> How good does such a change combination fit to the patch requirement
>> according to separation of concerns?
>> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.14-rc6#n81
>
> It is a general refactor patch, it shouldn't change any functionality. I could split it to one part introducing `devm_clk_get_enabled()` and the other `dmaenginem_async_device_register()`, but I don't feel that to be necessary, nor does it bring any advantages I believe.
Can it matter a bit more to separate changes for the application of devm functions
and the adjustment of corresponding exception handling with dev_err_probe() calls?

Regards,
Markus