linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] gpio: sysfs: Remove redundant check for struct gpio

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: <aYRaFs6DmjDQ6aHq@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 08:51:34 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] gpio: sysfs: Remove redundant check for struct
 gpio_chip

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 04:33:50AM -0600, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:10:50 +0100, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> said:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > index a6dd07be126c..3137e6f1108a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > @@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gc)
> >  	struct gpio_device *gdev = gc->gpiodev;
> >
> >  	/* FIXME: should the legacy sysfs handling be moved to gpio_device? */
> > -	gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(gdev);
> > +	gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(gdev, gc);
> 
> I understand the intention here but I really don't like passing both gc and
> gdev here. We can get the address of the gpio_device from gpio_chip so why not
> do this and pass only variable?

Ack, will fix in the next version.