From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/40] atm: simplify procfs code
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 20:15:21 -0500
Message-ID: <87efibjd5i.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <20180425154827.32251-1-hch@lst.de>
        <20180425154827.32251-35-hch@lst.de> <87r2mq2rll.fsf@xmission.com>
        <20180515141232.GD31296@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180515141232.GD31296@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of
        "Tue, 15 May 2018 16:12:33 +0200")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes:

> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 07:51:18AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Use remove_proc_subtree to remove the whole subtree on cleanup, and
>> > unwind the registration loop into individual calls.  Switch to use
>> > proc_create_seq where applicable.
>> 
>> Can you please explain why you are removing the error handling when
>> you are unwinding the registration loop?
>
> Because there is no point in handling these errors.  The code work
> perfectly fine without procfs, or without given proc files and the
> removal works just fine if they don't exist either.  This is a very
> common patter in various parts of the kernel already.
>
> I'll document it better in the changelog.

Thank you.  That is the kind of thing that could be a signal of
inattentiveness and problems, especially when it is not documented.

Eric