Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Tue, 25 May 2021 09:26:42 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] debugfs: remove return value of debugfs_create_bool() |
| |
Hi Greg,
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:39 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:18 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:51:42AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:41 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:11:32AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:28 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > No one checks the return value of debugfs_create_bool(), as it's not > > > > > > > needed, so make the return value void, so that no one tries to do so in > > > > > > > > > > > > Please explain in the patch description why it is not needed. > > > > > > > > > > Because you just do not need it, like almost all other debugfs calls > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > Why do I just not need it? > > > > > > Let me flip it around, why do you need it? There are no in-kernel users > > > of the return value anymore so what code requires this pointer now? > > > > There still are a few users of other members in the family, and some > > of them are meant to be removed without removing the full parent > > directory. Having all debugfs_create_*() functions behave the same > > is a bonus. > > I agree, and we are almost there, all that is left is: > debugfs_create_blob() > debugfs_create_file() > debugfs_create_file_unsafe() > for creating debugfs files. > > There is still: > debugfs_create_dir() > debugfs_create_symlink() > debugfs_create_automount() > for non-file creations that do not return void. > > The majority of the debugfs_create_* functions now do not return > anything. > > > But if other people are fine with having to call > > debugfs_remove(debugfs_lookup(...)), well, let it be like that... > > It saves at least a static variable, so what's not to like? :)
Which is more than offset by the cost of the new debugfs_lookup() call...
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
| |