Hi,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:36 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 10:25, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >> I actually wrote said follow-up patches and they were ready to go, but
> >> when I was trying to come up with the right "Fixes" tag I found commit
> >> b792e64021ec ("drm: no need to check return value of debugfs_create
> >> functions"). So what's being requested is nearly the opposite of what
> >> Greg did there.
> >>
> >> I thought about perhaps only checking for directories but even that
> >> type of check was removed by Greg's patch. Further checking shows that
> >> start_creating() actually has:
> >>
> >> if (IS_ERR(parent))
> >> return parent;
> >>
> >> ...so I guess that explains why it's fine to skip the check even for parents?
> >>
> >> Sure enough I confirmed that if I pass `ERR_PTR(-EINVAL)` as the root
> >> for `panel->funcs->debugfs_init()` that nothing bad seems to happen...
> >
> > Yeah, the idea is that you don't need to check for debugfs function
> > return values and you can safely pass error pointers to debugfs
> > functions. The worst that can happen is you don't get the debugfs, but
> > hey, it's debugfs so you shouldn't fail anything else because of that
> > anyway.
> >
>
> Thanks a lot Doug and Jani for the explanations. That makes sense and it
> explains why most code I looked was not checking for the return value.
>
> I guess we should write something about this in the debugfs functions
> kernel doc so it's mentioned explicitly and people don't have to guess.
For anyone interested, I've taken Javier's suggestion and tried to
update the docs:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220222154555.1.I26d364db7a007f8995e8f0dac978673bc8e9f5e2@changeid
