On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:21:46 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> 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: "Naveen N. Rao" <[email protected]> > Cc: Anil S Keshavamurthy <[email protected]> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/kprobes.c | 25 ++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c > index f4ddfdd2d07e..7287e7de2350 100644 > --- a/kernel/kprobes.c > +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c > @@ -2566,33 +2566,20 @@ static const struct file_operations fops_kp = { > > static int __init debugfs_kprobe_init(void) > { > - struct dentry *dir, *file; > + struct dentry *dir; > unsigned int value = 1; > > dir = debugfs_create_dir("kprobes", NULL); > - if (!dir) > - return -ENOMEM; Here, I think IS_ERR(dir) is OK for debugfs_create_file(), but dir == NULL has different meaning. I think we'd better keep this check. (I see, -ENOMEM will be no good...) Thank you, > > - file = debugfs_create_file("list", 0400, dir, NULL, > - &debugfs_kprobes_operations); > - if (!file) > - goto error; > + debugfs_create_file("list", 0400, dir, NULL, > + &debugfs_kprobes_operations); > > - file = debugfs_create_file("enabled", 0600, dir, > - &value, &fops_kp); > - if (!file) > - goto error; > + debugfs_create_file("enabled", 0600, dir, &value, &fops_kp); > > - file = debugfs_create_file("blacklist", 0400, dir, NULL, > - &debugfs_kprobe_blacklist_ops); > - if (!file) > - goto error; > + debugfs_create_file("blacklist", 0400, dir, NULL, > + &debugfs_kprobe_blacklist_ops); > > return 0; > - > -error: > - debugfs_remove(dir); > - return -ENOMEM; > } > > late_initcall(debugfs_kprobe_init); > -- > 2.20.1 > -- Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
