Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: i801: fix cleanup code in remove() and error path of probe()

[Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>]

On 06.09.2023 20:25, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
>>>> I wouldn't cc stable. For one thing, this patch doesn't fix a bug that
>>>> actually bothers people. Error paths are rarely taken, and driver
>>>> removal isn't that frequent either. Consequences are also rather
>>>> harmless (one-time resource leak, race condition which is quite
>>>> unlikely to trigger).  
>>>
>>> we are having this same discussion in another thread: if a bug is
>>> unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that there is no bug. A fix is a
>>> fix and should be backported to stable kernels.
>>
>> No. Please read:
>>
>>   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>>
>> There is clearly a list of conditions for a commit to be eligible for
>> stable kernel trees. It's not "every fix".
> 
> I think you are putting these fixes into the ""This could be a
> problem..." type of things".
> 
> But as I see these fixes don't belong to this category, as they
> are clearing the exit path. This is a kind of fixes I want to see
> going to stable.
> 
> Which means that if we exit through that path, do we exit
> cleanly, e.g., without leaking? If the answer is "no", then this
> is a fix and should go to stable.
> 
> It belongs to "This could be a problem..." type, things like
> dev_err/dev_warn (first thing coming to my mind) or other non
> functional fixes.
> 
> Maybe this is a matter of opinion and different background. For
> the i2c side I'm in peace :-)
> 
> For the stable backport I'd love to hear another opinion.
> 
> Thanks, Jean!
> Andi

Please let me know once you come to an agreement, then I'll
submit a (hopefully) final version.