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 <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? > > > > 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 <perex@xxxxxxxx> > > Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature