Re: [PATCH] nvmem: fix unregistering device in nvmem_register() error path

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 22.12.2021 10:08, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:00:03AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > On 22.12.2021 09:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>
> > > It seems Rafał is mistaken here too; you certainly need to call
> > > platform_device_put() if platform_device_register() fail, even if many
> > > current users do appear to get this wrong.
> >
> > Yes I was! Gosh I made up that "platform_device_put()" name and only
> > now I realized it actually exists!
> >
> > I stand by saying this design is really misleading. Even though
> > platform_device_put() was obviously a bad example.
> >
> > Please remember I'm just a minor kernel developer however in my humble
> > opinion behaviour of device_register() and platform_device_register()
> > should be changed.
> >
> > If any function fails I expect:
> > 1. That function to clean up its mess if any
> > 2. Me to be responsible to clean up my mess if any
> >
> > This is how "most" code (whatever it means) works.
> > 1. If POSIX snprintf() fails I'm not expected to call *printf_put() sth
> > 2. If POSIX bind() fails I'm not expected to call bind_put() sth
> > 3. (...)
> >
> > I'm not sure if those are the best examples but you should get my point.
>
> Yes, and we all agree that it's not the best interface. But it exists,
> and changing it now risks introducing worse problem than a minor, mostly
> theoretical, memleak.

Thanks for confirming that, I was wondering if it's just my mind that
doesn't find this design clear enough.

Now, assuming this design isn't perfect and some purists would like it
cleaned up:

Would that make sense to introduce something like
1. device_register2() / device_add2()
and
2. platform_device_register2() / platform_device_add2()

that would *not* require calling *_put() on failure? Then start
converting existing drivers to those new (clearner?) helpers?