Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:55:56 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Gary R Hook <ghook@amd.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Hook, Gary" <Gary.Hook@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] crypto: ccp: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions
Message-ID: <20190123065556.GB27466@kroah.com>
References: <20190122151422.14204-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20190122151422.14204-7-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <1330d284-560a-5e09-6d15-50da354d0da2@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1330d284-560a-5e09-6d15-50da354d0da2@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:06:54PM +0000, Gary R Hook wrote:
> On 1/22/19 9:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > return value.  The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > never do something different based on this.
> 
> Stupid question(s) time.
> 
> If we don't care about failures (because the subsystem handles them 
> without our involvement) why do these functions even have return values? 
> Why haven't they been changed to void so that they reflect the current 
> style of intended use?

Because on "normal" operations, you use the return value for something
(i.e. a parent directory to pass to other functions, or a value so you
can remove the file later).

> I realize I'm old fashioned, but if a failure occurs, I've always been 
> of a mind to kick out and not try to do any further work. But debugfs is 
> to be treated as an exception to that paradigm? Carry on, ignore errors, 
> don't worry about it?

Yes, that is the case here, it goes against what everyone normally
thinks about kernel development :)

thanks,

greg k-h