Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd/hfi: fix platform device leak on init failure

[Guangshuo Li]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your feedback.

On Tue, 22 Sept 2026 at 06:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21/09/2026 17:15, krzk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:26:09 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> >> amd_hfi_init() registers the HFI platform device before registering
> >> the platform driver. If platform_driver_register() fails, the function
> >> returns the error without unregistering the already registered platform
> >> device.
> >>
> >> Since the failed init path does not run amd_hfi_exit(), the platform
> >> device remains registered and its reference is never dropped, preventing
> >> the associated platform object from being released.
> >>
> >> Unregister the platform device when platform driver registration fails
> >> to properly unwind the successful device registration.
> >>
> >> The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> >> confirmed by manual review.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5d902ee5609a ("platform/x86: hfi: Introduce AMD Hardware Feedback Interface Driver")
> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/platform/x86/amd/hfi/hfi.c | 4 +++-
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >
> >
> > You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
> > subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
> > AI generated and most likely not tested.
> >
> > More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
> > relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
> > and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
> > Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
> > patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
> > Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
> > worrying.
> >
> > This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
> > contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
> > like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
> > is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
> > should be considered for review.
> >
> > Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
> > explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
> > subsystem, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
> > do if this was posted in a good faith.
>
>
> Apologies for spamming here, mistake on my side.
>
> I guess the OpenClaw on the other side did not even notice...
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

I would like to clarify that these patches were manually reviewed and
audited by us; they were not simply generated and submitted by an LLM.
However, I understand why the recent submission pattern may have given
that impression. We sent too many patches in a short period of time,
and we also failed to respond to some discussions in a timely manner,
which made the situation look worse.

Many of the recent patches, especially the v2 revisions, are
corrections and improvements based on previous review feedback rather
than completely new untested changes. That said, we recognize that the
way we submitted them increased the burden on maintainers and
reviewers.

We apologize for the pressure this caused to the community. We will be
more careful about organizing patches by subsystem, preparing proper
patchsets, and following the kernel contribution guidelines before
sending future work.

Thank you again for pointing this out.

Best regards,
Guangshuo