Hi Jean,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 01:47:45PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Heiner, Wolfram,
>
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 22:06:14 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > Jean pointed out that the referenced patch resulted in the remove()
> > path not having the reverse order of calls in probe(). I think there's
> > more to be done to ensure proper cleanup.
> > Especially cleanup in the probe() error path has to be extended.
> > Not every step there may be strictly needed, but it's in line with
> > remove() now.
>
> This last sentence no longer applies to this version of the patch.
>
> > Fixes: 9b5bf5878138 ("i2c: i801: Restore INTREN on unload")
> > Fixes: 9424693035a5 ("i2c: i801: Create iTCO device on newer Intel PCHs")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I wouldn't cc stable. For one thing, this patch doesn't fix a bug that
> actually bothers people. Error paths are rarely taken, and driver
> removal isn't that frequent either. Consequences are also rather
> harmless (one-time resource leak, race condition which is quite
> unlikely to trigger).
we are having this same discussion in another thread: if a bug is
unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that there is no bug. A fix is a
fix and should be backported to stable kernels.
Sometimes bugs are reported some other times bugs are discovered
by reading the code (like in the other thread). In the latter
case bugs are just waiting for their time of glory.
I'm OK if this set of fixes have the Fixes tag or, like in the
other case, we find a way to get it backported anyway.
> For another, this patch is a mix of 2 bug fixes (SMBHSTCNT being
> restored too early in i801_remove, resource leak in error path of
> i801_probe) which have been added in very different kernel versions
> (v5.16 and v4.3, respectively), and tidying up (the reordering of some
> of the statements in i801_remove is nice for consistency but is not
> actually fixing any bug).
>
> If you really want to push the fixes to stable, you'd have to split the
> patch in 3 pieces, one for each fix (going to stable), and one for the
> remainder (not going to stable). Otherwise it makes backporting to
> older kernels error-prone and time-consuming. Considering how harmless
> the bugs are in the first place, my position is that the extra work is
> simply not worth it.
In my opinion, Heiner, you should split this patch in the two
logical changes that Jean was suggesting, add the tags from Jean
and have them backported.
Thanks Jean for your review and inputs.
Andi
> > Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - add Fixes tag for 9424693035a5
> > - remove restoring SMBHSTCNT from probe error path
> > - move restoring SMBHSTCNT to the end in remove/shutdown
> > ---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c | 13 +++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > (...)
>
> That being said, the patch itself looks good to me, and I have tested
> it too.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
