Hi Greg, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:51:11 +0100: > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should > never do something different based on this. I didn't know about this. Is this something new or has it been the rule since the beginning? In the case, don't we need a Fixes tag here? > Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> > Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> > Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [...] > + > + d->dfs_emulate_io_failures = debugfs_create_file("tst_emulate_io_failures", > + S_IWUSR, d->dfs_dir, > + (void *)ubi_num, > + &dfs_fops); > + > + d->dfs_emulate_power_cut = debugfs_create_file("tst_emulate_power_cut", > + S_IWUSR, d->dfs_dir, > + (void *)ubi_num, > + &dfs_fops); Nitpick: I think we miss an empty line here. I can fix it when applying. > + d->dfs_power_cut_min = debugfs_create_file("tst_emulate_power_cut_min", > + S_IWUSR, d->dfs_dir, > + (void *)ubi_num, &dfs_fops); > + > + d->dfs_power_cut_max = debugfs_create_file("tst_emulate_power_cut_max", > + S_IWUSR, d->dfs_dir, > + (void *)ubi_num, &dfs_fops); > + > + debugfs_create_file("detailed_erase_block_info", S_IRUSR, d->dfs_dir, > + (void *)ubi_num, &eraseblk_count_fops); > + > + return 0; > } > > /** Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/