Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1282809
| From | Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure |
| Date | 2015-12-03 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qBxU6-2Ek-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qAP6G-7EK-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBwEF-1U2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:39:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/01, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > We were not checking the return from devm_add_action() which can fail.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/clk/qcom/common.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > index c112eba..3541a9a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > @@ -213,7 +213,10 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, pdev->dev.of_node);
> > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider,
> > + pdev->dev.of_node);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> So now we don't remove the clk provider on allocation failure?
> Confused.
>
> >
> > reset = &cc->reset;
> > reset->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node;
> > @@ -236,8 +239,12 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> > -
> > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + if (desc->gdscs && desc->num_gdscs)
> > + gdsc_unregister(dev);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> You seem to have missed the reset devm action. Why?
I have messed up pretty bad in this patch. :(
>
> Also, I wonder if we could have devm_add_action() or some other
> new devm_add_action() wrapper that tried to add the action, and
> if it failed it ran the action right there and returned the
> -ENOMEM? So then we can just have:
>
> ret = devm_add_action_or_do_it(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> and we're assured that on the failure path we'll have already
> called qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister.
I am on it, will send you a patch for this.
regards
sudip
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2015-12-03 08:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:00 +0100
csiph-web