netdev - Re: [PATCH] sparc/vio: make remove callback return void

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: <20210506061121.3flqmvm4jok6zj5z@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 08:11:21 +0200
From:   Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, jirislaby@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc/vio: make remove callback return void

Hi Dave,

On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:27:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Date: Wed,  5 May 2021 22:14:49 +0200
> 
> > The driver core ignores the return value of struct bus_type::remove()
> > because there is only little that can be done. To simplify the quest to
> > make this function return void, let struct vio_driver::remove() return
> > void, too. All users already unconditionally return 0, this commit makes
> > it obvious that returning an error code is a bad idea and should prevent
> > that future driver authors consider returning an error code.
> > 
> > Note there are two nominally different implementations for a vio bus:
> > one in arch/sparc/kernel/vio.c and the other in
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vio.c. This patch only addresses the
> > former.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> 
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

Thanks for your Ack. My expectation was that this patch will go via a
sparc tree. Does your Ack mean that you think it should take a different
path?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)