On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:23:50AM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > [+Catalin, Will: ACPI arm64 changes are sent through arm64 tree] > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 05:09:40PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > On 18/10/2022 10:35, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 06:06:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K�nig wrote: > > >> Returning an error value in a platform driver's remove callback results in > > >> a generic error message being emitted by the driver core, but otherwise it > > >> doesn't make a difference. The device goes away anyhow. > > >> > > >> So instead of triggering the generic platform error message, emit a more > > >> helpful message if a problem occurs and return 0 to suppress the generic > > >> message. > > >> > > >> This patch is a preparation for making platform remove callbacks return > > >> void. > > > > > > If that's the plan - I don't have anything against this patch. > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K�nig <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> --- > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> note that in the situations where the driver returned an error before > > >> and now emits a message, there is a resource leak. Someone who knows > > >> more about this driver and maybe even can test stuff, might want to > > >> address this. This might not only be about non-freed memory, the device > > >> disappears but it is kept in sdei_list and so might be used after being > > >> gone. > > > > > I'd need James' input on this. I guess we may ignore > > > sdei_event_disable() return value and continue anyway in agdi_remove(), > > > whether that's the right thing to do it is a different question. > > > > The unregister stuff is allowed to fail if the event is 'in progress' on another CPU. > > Given the handler panic()s the machine, if an event is in progress, the resource leak > > isn't something worth worrying about. The real problem is that the handler code may be > > free()d while another CPU is still executing it, which is only a problem for modules. > > > > As this thing can't be built as a module, and the handler panic()s the machine, I don't > > think there is going to be a problem here. > > Thanks James, I think though that's something we may want to handle in a > separate patch. > > This one looks fine to merge to me: > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, Lorenzo. I'll pick this one up. Will
