From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A26C31E40 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F092075B for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565110854; bh=KjoROOZ47TPJTAJYZltLMVR1qeSiPJPrOcZd+il1Jok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=sidrT5xqIohZ5iHR+vCuqFyMNrA1JDA9b6j/e/tyJBP8TYBCh4iKKWQmn4gq8rcpt Bo+HE+iwlXasYYgv8OE8cp4PqTVho2FnZ9l5fFrJTgAsAHlm/QuQFDSXq1KI7FztZE vMh459xU+AWZeyKz5SIFDVltX7aPmAkR2qkvE81o= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733054AbfHFRAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:00:53 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36792 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732729AbfHFRAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:00:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 849F420578; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:00:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565110852; bh=KjoROOZ47TPJTAJYZltLMVR1qeSiPJPrOcZd+il1Jok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VybcV06C/AEtsp3xnx4YHHMMQ5PynKaXrSXfi9ZRCrHgDpWr7YbaHC+nU+8vQbtGu iNJdd8JgYfuRKbIWISEeHbIfNFmOVbzpU2guTgCpxmOR8cd6lNGpYgmQ+GVwf6yJ9A H6S+Rvkm55Rp86veDppsVb0R8SgqFgyQAGfiyLtM= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:00:49 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Edwin Peer , Yangtao Li , Simon Horman , oss-drivers@netronome.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] nfp: no need to check return value of debugfs_create functions Message-ID: <20190806170049.GA12269@kroah.com> References: <20190806161128.31232-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> <20190806161128.31232-9-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> <20190806095008.57007f2f@cakuba.netronome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190806095008.57007f2f@cakuba.netronome.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:50:08AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 18:11:19 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 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. > > > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski > > Cc: "David S. Miller" > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann > > Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > Cc: John Fastabend > > Cc: Edwin Peer > > Cc: Yangtao Li > > Cc: Simon Horman > > Cc: oss-drivers@netronome.com > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski > > I take it this is the case since commit ff9fb72bc077 ("debugfs: return > error values, not NULL")? I.e. v5.0? It'd be useful to know for backport > purposes. You were always safe to ignore debugfs calls before that, but in 5.0 and then 5.2 we got a bit more "robust" with some internal debugfs logic to make it even easier. These can be backported to 2.6.11+ if you really want to, no functionality should change. But why would you want to backport them? This really isn't a "bugfix" for a stable kernel. No one should ever noticed the difference except for less memory being used. thanks, greg k-h