debugfs resources were never cleaned in case of failure to register driver.

Fixes: 4ef027d5a367 ("staging: pi433: add debugfs interface")
Reported-by Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Shahar Avidar <ikobh7@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
index b01ee145ff3c..77e37a5bd1a2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
@@ -1415,6 +1415,7 @@ static int __init pi433_init(void)
 	return 0;
 
 unreg_class_and_remove_dbfs:
+	debugfs_remove(root_dir);
 	class_unregister(&pi433_class);
 unreg_chrdev:
 	unregister_chrdev(MAJOR(pi433_devt), pi433_spi_driver.driver.name);
-- 
2.34.1

I suggest to use the summary phrase “Call debugfs_remove() in case of
driver registration failure in pi433_init()” instead.


> debugfs resources were never cleaned in case of failure to register driver.

How do you think about to use a change description like the following?

   Debugfs resources were not released after a call of
   the function “spi_register_driver” failed.
   Thus fix the exception handling accordingly.


Regards,
Markus

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:42:38PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> I suggest to use the summary phrase “Call debugfs_remove() in case of
> driver registration failure in pi433_init()” instead.
> 
> 
> > debugfs resources were never cleaned in case of failure to register driver.
> 
> How do you think about to use a change description like the following?
> 
>    Debugfs resources were not released after a call of
>    the function “spi_register_driver” failed.
>    Thus fix the exception handling accordingly.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot