linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59E11358.3090409@rock-chips.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Oct 2017 03:26:16 +0800
From:   jeffy <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, briannorris@...omium.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq

Hi Bjorn,

On 10/14/2017 03:19 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I'm sure they're harmless.  The point is that the cleanup should be
> done near the failure, not in the caller of the caller of the function
> where the failure was detected.  You have:
>
>    rockchip_pcie_probe
>      rockchip_pcie_parse_dt
>        rockchip_pcie_setup_irq
>          err = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq
>          if (err)
>            dev_err(...)
>
> So you detect the error in rockchip_pcie_setup_irq(), but you clean up
> from it in rockchip_pcie_probe(), which doesn't make sense because
> rockchip_pcie_probe() doesn't do anything related to wakeup interupts.
>
right, but if something wrong happens in rockchip_pcie_probe() later 
than rockchip_pcie_setup_irq(), we may still need to clean it up ;)

i think the error handling is a little like what we do in the remove 
callback
> Bjorn
>
>
>