[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2009738-ec07-8cad-10b3-4318f20b69b3@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 06:43:59 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, dan.carpenter@...cle.com, ssantosh@...nel.org,
mturquette@...libre.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: keystone: Fix an error checking
Le 02/11/2016 à 01:22, Stephen Boyd a écrit :
> On 10/24, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> clk_register_pll() can return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) so checking the return value
>> against NULL only is not correct.
> The code just doesn't propagate the error up to the caller.
> Instead the caller treats NULL as an error and non-NULL as valid.
> If the callee detects an error it hides it and returns NULL.
Could you please clarify?
I thought that your point was that 'clk_register_pll()' was returning
NULL when 'clk_register()' was returning an error.
The proposed patch fixes it and now 'clk_register_pll()' returns:
- either ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) if zkalloc fails
- or clk if 'clk_register()' fails. In this case it is an error pointer
- or a valid, non NULL, pointer in case of success
The caller, '_of_pll_clk_init()' has also been updated to test the
return value using IS_ERR.
So, which caller/callee do you refer to?
Would you like '_of_pll_clk_init()' to also propagate the error?
Or is it the phrasing of the log entry which is not clear enough and
should be updated?
>
>> In order to fix it, update clk_register_pll() to always return an error
>> pointer in case of error and check the return value with IS_ERR.
>>
>> While at it, also fix a tab vs space in the surrounding code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>> Un-compiled and un-tested.
> Please at least compile test patches.
Agreed, and I usually do.
But in this particular case, I don't have the build environment to do it.
I preferred to report what looks like a (small) bug to me and clearly
state that I didn't even compile-tested it rather than just ignoring it.
Hoping that this approach, in such a case, is acceptable.
CJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists