Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Alright, cool :) -Toke
