Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> writes: > Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Wang Ming <machel@xxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> It is expected that most callers should _ignore_ the errors >>>> return by debugfs_create_dir() in ath9k_htc_init_debug(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Ming <machel@xxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_debug.c | 2 -- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_debug.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_debug.c >>>> index b3ed65e5c4da..85ad45771b44 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_debug.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_debug.c >>>> @@ -491,8 +491,6 @@ int ath9k_htc_init_debug(struct ath_hw *ah) >>>> >>>> priv->debug.debugfs_phy = debugfs_create_dir(KBUILD_MODNAME, >>>> priv->hw->wiphy->debugfsdir); >>>> - if (!priv->debug.debugfs_phy) >>>> - return -ENOMEM; >>> >>> Hmm, so it's true that all the debugfs_create* functions deal correctly >>> with the dir pointer being an error pointer, which means that it's >>> possible to just ignore the return value of debugfs_create_dir() without >>> anything breaking. >> >> The comment in debugfs_create_dir() states: >> >> * NOTE: it's expected that most callers should _ignore_ the errors returned >> * by this function. Other debugfs functions handle the fact that the "dentry" >> * passed to them could be an error and they don't crash in that case. >> * Drivers should generally work fine even if debugfs fails to init anyway. >> >>> However, it also seems kinda pointless to have all those calls if we >>> know they're going to fail, so I prefer v1 of this patch that just >>> fixed the IS_ERR check. No need to resend, we can just apply v1 >>> instead... >> >> Because of the comment I'm leaning towards v3. > > Well, the comment says "most callers" :) > > I think having an early return like this is perfectly valid > optimisation, even if it doesn't really make any performance difference. > I don't feel incredibly strongly about it (given that the current check > is broken I guess the early return has never actually worked), so if you > feel like overriding your submaintainer on this, feel free ;) No no, I don't want to override anything :) Just making sure you were aware of the comment. v1 is in my pending branch right now. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
