Re: [PATCH 11/28] mfd: intel-lpss: Remove registered MFD child devices on probe failure

[Andy Shevchenko]

+Cc: Documentation people, checkpatch maintainers, and Roman and LKP folks

On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 07:50:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 05:33:33PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 12:09:33PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > When intel_lpss_has_idma() is true, intel_lpss_probe() registers the
> > > > iDMA64 child device via mfd_add_devices() before registering the host
> > > > controller cell.  If the second mfd_add_devices() call fails, the
> > > > err_remove_ltr error path returns without calling mfd_remove_devices(),
> > > > leaving the iDMA64 child device registered after the parent's
> > > > device-managed resources are freed.
> > > > 
> > > > Call mfd_remove_devices() on the probe error path to clean up any
> > > > previously registered MFD child devices, matching intel_lpss_remove().
> > > 
> > > Good catch!
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > assuming you will add Reported-by: Sashiko...
> > 
> > Roman suggested Closes:.
> 
> But Closes goes with Reported-by. The Submitting Patches says:
> 
> "The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
> hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. The tag is intended for
> bugs; please do not use it to credit feature requests. The tag should be
> followed by a Closes: tag pointing to the report, unless the report is not
> available on the web."
> 
> Okay, you can argue on 'people', but the established practice includes 0day LKP
> bot for a long time.

OTOH, there are also examples for Closes: w/o Reported-by. I'm confused...
So, what would be the best practice for all bots WRT Reported-by/Closes?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko