Just ignore this reply: for some reason this patch only ended up in my
private mailbox, but not on linux-media (and therefor also not in
patchwork). This should hopefully cause patchwork to pick it up.
Regards,
Hans
On 26/03/2023 16:30, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Exiting early in remove without releasing all acquired resources yields
> leaks. Note that e.g. memory allocated with devm_zalloc() is freed after
> .remove() returns, even if the return code was negative.
>
> While blocking_notifier_chain_unregister() won't fail and so the
> change is somewhat cosmetic, platform driver's .remove callbacks are
> about to be converted to return void. To prepare that, keep the error
> message but don't return early.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/cec/platform/cros-ec/cros-ec-cec.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/platform/cros-ec/cros-ec-cec.c b/drivers/media/cec/platform/cros-ec/cros-ec-cec.c
> index 6ebedc71d67d..960432230bbf 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/cec/platform/cros-ec/cros-ec-cec.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/cec/platform/cros-ec/cros-ec-cec.c
> @@ -332,14 +332,16 @@ static int cros_ec_cec_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> int ret;
>
> + /*
> + * blocking_notifier_chain_unregister() only fails if the notifier isn't
> + * in the list. We know it was added to it by .probe(), so there should
> + * be no need for error checking. Be cautious and still check.
> + */
> ret = blocking_notifier_chain_unregister(
> &cros_ec_cec->cros_ec->event_notifier,
> &cros_ec_cec->notifier);
> -
> - if (ret) {
> + if (ret)
> dev_err(dev, "failed to unregister notifier\n");
> - return ret;
> - }
>
> cec_notifier_cec_adap_unregister(cros_ec_cec->notify,
> cros_ec_cec->adap);
