Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220613120534.36991-1-andrea.merello@iit.it> <20220613120534.36991-9-andrea.merello@iit.it>
 <CAHp75Vdh8kAH6540xCwzFh5uf=QMVTHC42a8pOgvkpObzjfD+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <164f663acbba481a8ea8f45f185aaf83@iit.it> <CAHp75VeYK=oCbbBVp01_b5LK_FqAo4F_bic9Me4Y6PpfFnDU6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a41936e4063f4c2c9da7c7e1d915bd62@iit.it> <CAHp75Vd_w1WOp9ntbNqxtuuVXi0kMGbX=OZ7cioNxoh2yUa1ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd_w1WOp9ntbNqxtuuVXi0kMGbX=OZ7cioNxoh2yUa1ag@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: andrea.merello@gmail.com
From:   Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 17:27:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAN8YU5PDoAaFcp83NMBZLcMJ99FWOxDc9DXLJthE9uNkK-izHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6 08/14] iio: imu: add Bosch Sensortec BNO055 core driver
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrea Merello <Andrea.Merello@iit.it>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@konsulko.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com>,
        jmondi <jacopo@jmondi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Il giorno mar 14 giu 2022 alle ore 17:11 Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:15 PM Andrea Merello <Andrea.Merello@iit.it> wr=
ote:
>
> ...
>
> > >> >> +       devm_add_action_or_reset(priv->dev, bno055_debugfs_remove=
, priv->debugfs);
> > >> >
> > >> >Shouldn't we report the potential error here? It's not directly
> > >> >related to debugfs, but something which is not directly related.
> > >>
> > >> The error eventually comes out from something that has nothing to do=
 with debugs per se (i.e. the devm stuff), but it will only affect debugfs =
indeed.
> > >>
> > >> Assuming that we don't want to make the whole driver fail in case de=
bugfs stuff fails (see last part of the comment above debugfs_create_file()=
 implementation), and given that the devm_add_action_or_reset(), should ind=
eed "reset" in case of failure (i.e.  we should be in a clean situation any=
way), I would say it should be OK not to propagate the error and let things=
 go on.
> > >
> > >As I said, it's not directly related to debugfs. Here is the resource
> > >leak possible or bad things happen if you probe the driver, that fails
> > >to add this call for removal, remove it, and try to insert again, in
> > >such case the debugfs will be stale.
> >
> > Hum, I would say this shouldn't ever happen: AFAICS devm_add_action_or_=
reset() is a wrapper around devm_add_action() and it's purpose is exactly t=
o add a check for failure; devm_add_action_or_reset() immediately invokes t=
he action handler in case devm_add_action() fails. IOW in case of failure t=
o add the devm stuff, the debugfs file is removed immediately and it should=
n't cause any mess with next times probe()s; just the driver will go on wit=
hout the debugfs file being here.
> >
> > I think this is the point of using devm_add_action_or_reset() instead o=
f dev_add_action()  indeed, or am I missing something?
>
> Reading that code again and I think you are right, so dev_warn() will
> be sufficient to show that we fail. OTOH, what is the point of adding
> a resource for the failed debugfs call?

Ah, you are right here: I'll make the call to
devm_add_action_or_reset() conditional to success of
debugfs_create_file(). In case any of the two fails we can also warn
the user.

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko