Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:40:04 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] platform: Provide a remove callback that returns no value |
| |
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:20:29AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Greg, > > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:52:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:21:30PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:09:14PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > > struct platform_driver::remove returning an integer made driver authors > > > > > > expect that returning an error code was proper error handling. However > > > > > > the driver core ignores the error and continues to remove the device > > > > > > because there is nothing the core could do anyhow and reentering the > > > > > > remove callback again is only calling for trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is an source for errors typically yielding resource leaks in the > > > > > > error path. > > > > > > > > > > > > As there are too many platform drivers to neatly convert them all to > > > > > > return void in a single go, do it in several steps after this patch: > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Convert all drivers to implement .remove_new() returning void instead > > > > > > of .remove() returning int; > > > > > > b) Change struct platform_driver::remove() to return void and so make > > > > > > it identical to .remove_new(); > > > > > > c) Change all drivers back to .remove() now with the better prototype; > > > > > > > > > > Change c) seems like it will be just as much work as a), right? > > > > > > > > Yeah, but c) should be trivially doable per subsystem using coccinelle. > > > > So my plan is to do a) per subsystem with one patch per driver and c) > > > > with one patch per subsystem. > > > > > > > > > Who is going to do the work of the conversion to this new prototype? > > > > > I'll be glad to take this, but I don't want to see a half-finished > > > > > conversion happen and us stuck with a "new" and "old" call, as that > > > > > would just be a mess. > > > > > > > > The idea is that this becomes my new pet project once > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221118224540.619276-1-uwe@kleine-koenig.org > > > > is complete. :-) > > > > > > > > I intend to work on that once the patch under discussion is included in > > > > an -rc1. > > > > > > Ok, I'll wait to queue this up to my tree until after 6.2-rc1 is out, > > > thanks. > > > > We're at v6.2-rc3 now. Is this patch still in your queue and you didn't > > come around yet to apply it, or did it fell through the cracks? > > My queue is huge right now. > > I'll work on this "soon". Do you want this on a tag that others can > pull into their trees, or just in my normal driver-core-next branch? > Either is fine for me.
In my experience maintainers stumble when patches depend on patches that are not in -rc1. So I will be patient until this hits an -rc1. Thanks for the offer.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |