On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:15:16AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > 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...)
dir == NULL means the system is out of memory. Which I'll change and just make it return an error, so it is fine to ignore this value. thanks, greg k-h
