Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a841:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d1csp409825pxy; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+LjotordfTLye4x3ISmbvvPIhpg+Vuixtjz134h7GeeopUsYQT+qP8Jvx7a+f36A2MtLf X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1c0f:: with SMTP id oc15mr34286505pjb.228.1619617751448; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1619617751; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=wZndYnmpkFYyeN0KZTSZ9wLidtt9nzbKo3W4eu6lfYuoOWNDq67uFxi9NvXRg0XgZi GMsEkIa7OnXpzm/WPQAzQKxqMKI3sKqgaU3Vo/BGMoFGaJaipTSCkHEL9F2rE15aLrKy PnHhUhifDzzmo3PmfrCrxQfHhuolWSKS8LPOum6yCdUmyUfbrMa2JOqE0eRQwqX2Bp+a yx3FZluJu9NE4VxsHHJAkw8Ekr5ZpZoB3w3jDeJZ/q+K7RdVYpqc34lBESRBxgUXI0WK YezSHL2Jy/jPE34wLWycK0xX3hNPi7HVvfaE9pBokLmmK3LoLQwgHChRMr+js16ae3O1 etMA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject:dkim-signature:dkim-filter; bh=ENLwDl/OLcklOZfcnxRfMQqj+SXE/rIe811WLs5W4hw=; b=n1bkM4Vyo70TOKnawow7Hz9rdMi4/RZZ/M7dup6bxX8tY6VL1dpEaUkeIRsJgve3Gc yGrUGLVmAPU9A8YBLuJUiX0ygvQhx2K78+KH+bT5nk1MUeuv5x0KxkLEyJKKOeLX/TEb Dqn6l2Gn8f2wBbqMh7+4CRrTXAA9xXx1itEC18TCOYW26qinerxH0zWGsJX3ggj93Udj jD7VHLmaV9Q3S7MnB5t/4NFJuyhCPGAguOxYoz5C3WnL7rHBaIbAbxuO/0n0ApOj3Zk7 VwjpUs01dZ4v5kB0qAadEJTGccXZ0Liz1g+gnjZtkhA9dIuHyMZ/bVxnDXwk1NTQ8BXr TGAQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@perex.cz header.s=default header.b=dcEDzuWU; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=perex.cz Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l4si3836373pgf.397.2021.04.28.06.48.58; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@perex.cz header.s=default header.b=dcEDzuWU; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=perex.cz Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232378AbhD1MFr (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:05:47 -0400 Received: from mail1.perex.cz ([77.48.224.245]:55910 "EHLO mail1.perex.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229645AbhD1MFq (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:05:46 -0400 Received: from mail1.perex.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.perex.cz (Perex's E-mail Delivery System) with ESMTP id 23366A0046; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:04:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.perex.cz 23366A0046 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=perex.cz; s=default; t=1619611499; bh=ENLwDl/OLcklOZfcnxRfMQqj+SXE/rIe811WLs5W4hw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dcEDzuWUErsp+Pawe2OIPbVWEabDWgNOTcNWw9zuJ6Q3/fsF/xpno6SzMKbruK/L3 4zYsZ7ztOwrJaVLwrNFIt7W3Tulgxhu0hkytnKhSdptVZN52cdIpsbCOmQv7JYBLll LqE3zCbqCqPbi7l2gGmAX9kvfSherL9JsohKXJV0= Received: from p1gen2.localdomain (unknown [192.168.100.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: perex) by mail1.perex.cz (Perex's E-mail Delivery System) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Handle errors while attaching devices To: bkkarthik , Leon Romanovsky Cc: Anupama K Patil , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org References: <20210424194301.jmsqpycvsm7izbk3@ubuntu> <20210426175031.w26ovnffjiow346h@burgerking> From: Jaroslav Kysela Message-ID: <59a5d631-6658-2034-06c4-467520b5b9f7@perex.cz> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:04:49 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210426175031.w26ovnffjiow346h@burgerking> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dne 26. 04. 21 v 19:50 bkkarthik napsal(a): > On 21/04/26 08:04AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:13:01AM +0530, Anupama K Patil wrote: >>> isapnp_proc_init() does not look at the return value from >>> isapnp_proc_attach_device(). Check for this return value in >>> isapnp_proc_detach_device(). >>> >>> Cleanup in isapnp_proc_detach_device and >>> isapnp_proc_detach_bus() for cleanup. >>> >>> Changed sprintf() to the kernel-space function scnprintf() as it returns >>> the actual number of bytes written. >>> >>> Removed unnecessary variables de, e of type 'struct proc_dir_entry' to >>> save memory. >> >> What exactly do you fix for such an old code? > > I was not aware that this code is so old. This fix was made after checkpatch reported assignment inside an if-statement. > Please ignore this patch if th change is not necessary as the code is probably not being used anywhere :) > > Maybe the code has to be marked as obsolete in the MAINTAINERS file to prevent patches being sent? > >> >>> >>> Suggested-by: Shuah Khan >>> Co-developed-by: B K Karthik >>> Signed-off-by: B K Karthik >>> Signed-off-by: Anupama K Patil >>> --- >>> drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c >>> index 785a796430fa..46ebc24175b7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c >>> @@ -54,34 +54,54 @@ static const struct proc_ops isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops = { >>> .proc_read = isapnp_proc_bus_read, >>> }; >>> >>> +static int isapnp_proc_detach_device(struct pnp_dev *dev) >>> +{ >>> + proc_remove(dev->procent); >>> + dev->procent = NULL; >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int isapnp_proc_detach_bus(struct pnp_card *bus) >>> +{ >>> + proc_remove(bus->procdir); >>> + return 0; >>> +} >> >> Please don't add one line functions that are called only once and have >> return value that no one care about it. > > These were only intended for a clean-up job, the idea of this function came from how PCI handles procfs. > Maybe those should be changed? Which code you refer? I see: for_each_pci_dev(dev) pci_proc_attach_device(dev); The error codes are ignored, too. It does not harm, if proc entries are not created (in this case - the system is unstable anyway). We should concentrate only to the wrong pointers usage. Jaroslav -- Jaroslav Kysela Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.