On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:00:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email protected]> > > > Cc: John Fastabend <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Edwin Peer <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Yangtao Li <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> > > > > 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.
Oh sorry! I meant vendor out-of-tree driver backport. We all maintain a tarball version of the drivers that compile on old kernels, I was mostly wondering from that perspective. > 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. Right, it wouldn't really help to do an upstream backport.
