MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211108101157.15189-1-bp@alien8.de> <20211108101157.15189-43-bp@alien8.de>
 <CAMuHMdWH+txiSP_d7Jc4f_bU8Lf9iWpT4E3o5o7BJr-YdA6-VA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YYkyUEqcsOwQMb1S@zn.tnic> <CAMuHMdXiBEQyEXJagSfpH44hxVA2t0sDH7B7YubLGHrb2MJLLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YYlJQYLiIrhjwOmT@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <YYlJQYLiIrhjwOmT@zn.tnic>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:12:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXHikGrmUzuq0WG5JRHUUE=5zsaVCTF+e4TiHpM5tc5kA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 42/42] notifier: Return an error when callback is
 already registered
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@chelsio.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@chelsio.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Vinay Kumar Yadav <vinay.yadav@chelsio.com>,
        ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-leds <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "open list:REMOTE PROCESSOR (REMOTEPROC) SUBSYSTEM" 
        <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Borislav,

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 04:25:47PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > I'm not against returning proper errors codes.  I'm against forcing
> > callers to check things that cannot fail and to add individual error
> > printing to each and every caller.
>
> If you're against checking things at the callers, then the registration
> function should be void. IOW, those APIs are not optimally designed atm.

Returning void is the other extreme ;-)

There are 3 levels (ignoring BUG_ON()/panic () inside the callee):
  1. Return void: no one can check success or failure,
  2. Return an error code: up to the caller to decide,
  3. Return a __must_check error code: every caller must check.

I'm in favor of 2, as there are several places where it cannot fail.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds