On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:26:52 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:28:14 +0100 > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When an error happens, debugfs should return an error pointer value, not > > > NULL. This will prevent the totally theoretical error where a debugfs > > > call fails due to lack of memory, returning NULL, and that dentry value > > > is then passed to another debugfs call, which would end up succeeding, > > > creating a file at the root of the debugfs tree, but would then be > > > impossible to remove (because you can not remove the directory NULL). > > > > > > So, to make everyone happy, always return errors, this makes the users > > > of debugfs much simpler (they do not have to ever check the return > > > value), and everyone can rest easy. > > > > With Greg's return check removal patches, I'm OK for this change. > > > > Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> > > > Reported-by: Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> > > > Reported-by: Gary R Hook <[email protected]> > > > Reported-by: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> > > > Cc: stable <[email protected]> > > BTW, would you really think it should go to stable? It seems an improvement > instead of a bugfix...
See later in the thread, I decided that was not the correct thing to do :) thanks, greg k-h
