On 21/04/28 03:21PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 02:04:49PM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > Dne 26. 04. 21 v 19:50 bkkarthik napsal(a):
> > > On 21/04/26 08:04AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 01:13:01AM +0530, Anupama K Patil wrote:
> > >>> isapnp_proc_init() does not look at the return value from
> > >>> isapnp_proc_attach_device(). Check for this return value in
> > >>> isapnp_proc_detach_device().
> > >>>
> > >>> Cleanup in isapnp_proc_detach_device and
> > >>> isapnp_proc_detach_bus() for cleanup.
> > >>>
> > >>> Changed sprintf() to the kernel-space function scnprintf() as it returns
> > >>> the actual number of bytes written.
> > >>>
> > >>> Removed unnecessary variables de, e of type 'struct proc_dir_entry' to
> > >>> save memory.
> > >>
> > >> What exactly do you fix for such an old code?
> > >
> > > I was not aware that this code is so old. This fix was made after
> > > checkpatch reported assignment inside an if-statement.
> > > Please ignore this patch if th change is not necessary as the code is
> > > probably not being used anywhere :)
> > >
> > > Maybe the code has to be marked as obsolete in the MAINTAINERS file to
> > > prevent patches being sent?
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Suggested-by: Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > >>> Co-developed-by: B K Karthik <bkkart...@pesu.pes.edu>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: B K Karthik <bkkart...@pesu.pes.edu>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil...@gmail.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> > >>> index 785a796430fa..46ebc24175b7 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
> > >>> @@ -54,34 +54,54 @@ static const struct proc_ops
> > >>> isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops = {
> > >>> .proc_read = isapnp_proc_bus_read,
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> +static int isapnp_proc_detach_device(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + proc_remove(dev->procent);
> > >>> + dev->procent = NULL;
> > >>> + return 0;
> > >>> +}
> > >>> +
> > >>> +static int isapnp_proc_detach_bus(struct pnp_card *bus)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + proc_remove(bus->procdir);
> > >>> + return 0;
> > >>> +}
> > >>
> > >> Please don't add one line functions that are called only once and have
> > >> return value that no one care about it.
> > >
> > > These were only intended for a clean-up job, the idea of this function
> > > came from how PCI handles procfs.
> > > Maybe those should be changed?
> >
> > Which code you refer? I see:
> >
> > for_each_pci_dev(dev)
> > pci_proc_attach_device(dev);
>
> He talks about isapnp_proc_detach_*() functions.Yes, pci_proc_detach_device() and pci_proc_detach_bus() are both one-line functions as well. I don't mean to question working code, we only tried to do something similar here for ISA. thanks, karthik > > > > > > > The error codes are ignored, too. It does not harm, if proc entries are not > > created (in this case - the system is unstable anyway). We should > > concentrate > > only to the wrong pointers usage. > > > > Jaroslav > > > > -- > > Jaroslav Kysela <pe...@perex.cz> > > Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
