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 <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net>
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
> > > Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <h...@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Edwin Peer <edwin.p...@netronome.com>
> > > Cc: Yangtao Li <tiny.win...@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com>
> > > Cc: oss-driv...@netronome.com
> > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> >
> > 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.
