[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86de3c58-250e-9da7-1446-2e3bef7ea97a@lwfinger.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:47:06 -0500
From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@...wei.com>, m@...s.ch
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: Fix error return in ssb_bus_scan()
On 10/21/20 2:33 AM, Jing Xiangfeng wrote:
> Fix to return error code -EINVAL from the error handling case instead
> of 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/ssb/scan.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ssb/scan.c b/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> index f49ab1aa2149..4161e5d1f276 100644
> --- a/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ int ssb_bus_scan(struct ssb_bus *bus,
> if (bus->nr_devices > ARRAY_SIZE(bus->devices)) {
> pr_err("More than %d ssb cores found (%d)\n",
> SSB_MAX_NR_CORES, bus->nr_devices);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> goto err_unmap;
> }
> if (bus->bustype == SSB_BUSTYPE_SSB) {
>
You misread the code. The current version is returning -ENOMEM, not 0 for this
error. Returning -EINVAL could be regarded as as better value; however, this
error is not likely to appear and it does not make much difference!
In any case, the commit message is wrong. NACK.
Larry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists