Re: [PATCH] platform: Provide a remove callback that returns no value

[Uwe Kleine-König]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature