The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart
from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks.
To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return
void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to
.remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers
are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
callback to the void returning variant.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
---
drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
index e700a5ef7043..cd29e66b1543 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
+++ b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
@@ -326,16 +326,15 @@ static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
return ret;
}
-static int efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
+static void efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
{
efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(dev);
efi_secret_unmap_area();
- return 0;
}
static struct platform_driver efi_secret_driver = {
.probe = efi_secret_probe,
- .remove = efi_secret_remove,
+ .remove_new = efi_secret_remove,
.driver = {
.name = "efi_secret",
},
--
2.43.0
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 14:28, Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart
> from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks.
>
> To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return
> void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to
> .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers
> are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
>
> Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> callback to the void returning variant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> index e700a5ef7043..cd29e66b1543 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> @@ -326,16 +326,15 @@ static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static void efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> {
> efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(dev);
> efi_secret_unmap_area();
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver efi_secret_driver = {
> .probe = efi_secret_probe,
> - .remove = efi_secret_remove,
> + .remove_new = efi_secret_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = "efi_secret",
> },
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart
> from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks.
>
> To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return
> void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to
> .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers
> are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
>
> Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> callback to the void returning variant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
Is this patch still on someone's radar? If a resend would help, please
tell me.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 22:35, Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> > returning an error code. However the value returned is ignored (apart
> > from emitting a warning) and this typically results in resource leaks.
> >
> > To improve here there is a quest to make the remove callback return
> > void. In the first step of this quest all drivers are converted to
> > .remove_new(), which already returns void. Eventually after all drivers
> > are converted, .remove_new() will be renamed to .remove().
> >
> > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > callback to the void returning variant.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
>
> Is this patch still on someone's radar? If a resend would help, please
> tell me.
>
I've queued this up in the EFI tree.
Thanks,