linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: rt2x00: Remove the use of dev_err

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250822074450.GB46129@wp.pl>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 09:44:50 +0200
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>
To: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@...o.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rt2x00: Remove the use of dev_err_probe()

Hi

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:58:43PM +0800, Xichao Zhao wrote:
> The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'.
> Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just
> return the value instead.

There is this comment regarding dev_err_probe:

 * Using this helper in your probe function is totally fine even if @err
 * is known to never be -EPROBE_DEFER.
 * The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format
 * of the error code, which is emitted symbolically (i.e. you get "EAGAIN"
 * instead of "-35"), and having the error code returned allows more
 * compact error paths.

If you want this change you have please justify it better, i.e.
we don't need to print error message because ...

Regards
Stanislaw


> Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@...o.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800soc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800soc.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800soc.c
> index 8f510a84e7f1..e5c99fc6509b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800soc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800soc.c
> @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ static int rt2x00soc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, const struct rt2x00_ops
>  
>  	hw = ieee80211_alloc_hw(sizeof(struct rt2x00_dev), ops->hw);
>  	if (!hw)
> -		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -ENOMEM, "Failed to allocate hardware");
> +		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hw);
>  
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>