On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is safe to use devres allocation within the hid subsystem:
> - the devres release is called _after_ the call to .remove(), meaning
> that no freed pointers will exists while removing the device
> - if a .probe() fails, devres releases all the allocated ressources
> before going to the next driver: there will not be ghost ressources
> attached to a hid device if several drivers are probed.
>
> Given that, we can clean up a little some of the HID drivers. These ones
> are trivial:
> - there is only one kzalloc in the driver
> - the .remove() callback contains only one kfree on top of hid_hw_stop()
> - the error path in the probe is easy enough to be manually checked
Thanks for the patch! I'm sorry I didn't find time to do what I was
talking about last time.
Few comments below.
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-a4tech.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-a4tech.c
> @@ -104,29 +103,16 @@ static int a4_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> ret = hid_parse(hdev);
> if (ret) {
> hid_err(hdev, "parse failed\n");
> - goto err_free;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> ret = hid_hw_start(hdev, HID_CONNECT_DEFAULT);
> - if (ret) {
> + if (ret)
> hid_err(hdev, "hw start failed\n");
> - goto err_free;
> - }
>
> - return 0;
Isn't it better to leave explicit return 0? I think it would be fool
proof in case someone wants to add anything in the middle.
> -err_free:
> - kfree(a4);
> return ret;
> }
> -static void a4_remove(struct hid_device *hdev)
> -{
> - struct a4tech_sc *a4 = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> -
> - hid_hw_stop(hdev);
Is it safe to remove this call?
This question is the same for all patched drivers.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
