[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c60a96c-7995-fd12-39b6-990ae0ffad4f@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:44:34 +0000
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmem: core: don't check the return value of notifier
chain call
On 15/02/2019 10:42, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>
> blocking_notifier_call_chain() returns the value returned by the last
> registered callback. A positive return value doesn't indicate an error
> and an nvmem device should correctly register irrespective of any
> notifier callback failures. Drop the retval check.
>
> Fixes: bee1138bea15 ("nvmem: add a notifier chain")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Thanks for the fix!
Acked-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/nvmem/core.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> index f7301bb4ef3b..3ce65927e11c 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> @@ -686,9 +686,7 @@ struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct nvmem_config *config)
> if (rval)
> goto err_remove_cells;
>
> - rval = blocking_notifier_call_chain(&nvmem_notifier, NVMEM_ADD, nvmem);
> - if (rval)
> - goto err_remove_cells;
> + blocking_notifier_call_chain(&nvmem_notifier, NVMEM_ADD, nvmem);
>
> return nvmem;
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists