[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [v6 08/14] iio: imu: add Bosch Sensortec BNO055 core driver
Il giorno mar 14 giu 2022 alle ore 17:11 Andy Shevchenko
<> ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:15 PM Andrea Merello <> wrote:
> ...
> > >> >> + 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 debugfs stuff fails (see last part of the comment above debugfs_create_file() implementation), and given that the devm_add_action_or_reset(), should indeed "reset" in case of failure (i.e. we should be in a clean situation anyway), 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 to add a check for failure; devm_add_action_or_reset() immediately invokes the action handler in case devm_add_action() fails. IOW in case of failure to add the devm stuff, the debugfs file is removed immediately and it shouldn't cause any mess with next times probe()s; just the driver will go on without the debugfs file being here.
> >
> > I think this is the point of using devm_add_action_or_reset() instead of 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-14 17:29    [W:0.056 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site