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 <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: B K Karthik <bkkarthik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: B K Karthik <bkkarthik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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?
thanks,
karthik
>
> Thanks
>
> > +
> > static int isapnp_proc_attach_device(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> > {
> > struct pnp_card *bus = dev->card;
> > - struct proc_dir_entry *de, *e;
> > char name[16];
> >
> > - if (!(de = bus->procdir)) {
> > - sprintf(name, "%02x", bus->number);
> > - de = bus->procdir = proc_mkdir(name, isapnp_proc_bus_dir);
> > - if (!de)
> > + if (!bus->procdir) {
> > + scnprintf(name, 16, "%02x", bus->number);
> > + bus->procdir = proc_mkdir(name, isapnp_proc_bus_dir);
> > + if (!bus->procdir)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> > - sprintf(name, "%02x", dev->number);
> > - e = dev->procent = proc_create_data(name, S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, de,
> > + scnprintf(name, 16, "%02x", dev->number);
> > + dev->procent = proc_create_data(name, S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, bus->procdir,
> > &isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops, dev);
> > - if (!e)
> > + if (!dev->procent) {
> > + isapnp_proc_detach_bus(bus);
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > - proc_set_size(e, 256);
> > + }
> > + proc_set_size(dev->procent, 256);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > int __init isapnp_proc_init(void)
> > {
> > struct pnp_dev *dev;
> > + int dev_attach;
> >
> > isapnp_proc_bus_dir = proc_mkdir("bus/isapnp", NULL);
> > protocol_for_each_dev(&isapnp_protocol, dev) {
> > - isapnp_proc_attach_device(dev);
> > + dev_attach = isapnp_proc_attach_device(dev);
> > + if (!dev_attach) {
> > + pr_info("procfs: pnp: Unable to attach the device, not enough memory");
> > + isapnp_proc_detach_device(dev);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > }
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kernelnewbies mailing list
> > Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
