linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/6] iio: sca3000: make stop_all

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: <046db6b8-7daf-4bad-a24b-974894e599ad@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:36:30 +0530
From: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        David Lechner
 <dlechner@...libre.com>,
        Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
        Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        error27@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/6] iio: sca3000: make stop_all_interrupts()
 return void

Hi Andy,

On 04/02/26 15:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 02:50:54PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> On 04/02/26 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:11:58PM -0800, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>    	ret = sca3000_read_data_short(st, SCA3000_REG_INT_MASK_ADDR, 1);
>>>>    	if (ret)
>>>> -		goto error_ret;
>>>
>>>> -error_ret:
>>>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>>> +out_unlock:
>>>
>>> While this is correct change semantically, it's not needed as very soon
>>> the other patch drops this for good, hence leave the label name unmodified.
>>
>> Agree, I was doubtful on which is the preferred approach as its not really a
>> return anymore. But thanks for explaining.
> 
> The common sense says that we need to avoid ping-pong coding (*) in the series.
> 
> *It's when one patch in the series adds the code that's going to be deleted or
> heavily modified just later in the very same series.
> 

Sure thanks for explaining, I was thinking about it from a backport 
point of view(say this patch is auto selected as a prerequisite for 
applying another patch, but guard patch is not selected because there is 
no cleanup.h is some older kernel), in that case if this patch alone 
gets backported but not the gaurd() patch, err_return label might not 
look great. But I agree its not likely to happen in this case.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Regards,
Harshit