Jean Delvare wrote: >> Fix unchecked return-status by replacing all unchecked calls >> to device_create_file with a single group declaration, >> and one call to sysfs_create_group, and check that one return status. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie at gmail.com> >> --- >> $ diffstat pc-set/hwmon-unchecked-return-status-fixes-w83791d.patch >> w83791d.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> 1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >> >> --- >> >> Its impressive (or embarrassing) how much slop you detect. >> I trust this comment is in right place for auto-strip to >> keep it out of Changelog. Is any of this automated, and if so, >> are we/I getting it right (or close) ? >> > > Yes, anything between "---" and the beginning of the actual patch is > dropped upstream. But I'm still editing things manually anyway so it's > no big deal where you add your comments. > > >> @@ -1029,6 +1054,8 @@ static int w83791d_detach_client(struct >> if (data) >> hwmon_device_unregister(data->class_dev); >> >> + sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &w83791d_group); >> + >> if ((err = i2c_detach_client(client))) >> return err; >> > > The "if (data)" is used to differenciate between the real client and > the subclients, exactly as is done in the w83781d driver. As subclients > have no files, the call to sysfs_remove_group() should be made > conditional as well. If not, it'll still work, but with a significant > performance drop. > > on this item, I actually checked :-) w83791d_detect will fail unless data is sucessfully allocated, so it must be there if detach_client is called. but I suppose its safer (less action-at-a-distance) your way, esp wrt any future changes. redo attached. > Thanks, > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: hwmon-unchecked-return-status-fixes-w83791d.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 3343 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20060925/773e9a77/attachment.bin
