| Message ID | 20240418210236.194190-2-wander@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: fix minor error path mistakes | expand |
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 05:02, Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com> wrote: > > kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus register error, > but mistakenly it tries to unregister the bus. > > Unregister the device instead of the bus. > > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices") > --- Nice catch! Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Cheers, -- David > lib/kunit/device.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c > index abc603730b8e..25c81ed465fb 100644 > --- a/lib/kunit/device.c > +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ int kunit_bus_init(void) > > error = bus_register(&kunit_bus_type); > if (error) > - bus_unregister(&kunit_bus_type); > + root_device_unregister(kunit_bus_device); > return error; > } > > -- > 2.44.0 >
> kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus register error, > but mistakenly it tries to unregister the bus. Would the following description variant be more appropriate? kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus registration error. But it mistakenly tries to unregister the bus. Regards, Markus
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 07:40:43AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus register error, > > but mistakenly it tries to unregister the bus. > > Would the following description variant be more appropriate? > > kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus registration error. > But it mistakenly tries to unregister the bus. 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
diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c index abc603730b8e..25c81ed465fb 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/device.c +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ int kunit_bus_init(void) error = bus_register(&kunit_bus_type); if (error) - bus_unregister(&kunit_bus_type); + root_device_unregister(kunit_bus_device); return error; }
kunit_init_device() should unregister the device on bus register error, but mistakenly it tries to unregister the bus. Unregister the device instead of the bus. Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com> Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices") --- lib/kunit/device.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)