[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201205143250.2378b9f9@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 14:32:50 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, edwin.peer@...adcom.com,
Zhang Changzhong <zhangchangzhong@...wei.com>
Subject: sparse annotation for error types?
Hi!
Recently we've been getting a steady stream of patches from Changzhong
to fix missing assignment to error variables before jumping to error
cases.
I wonder if for new code it'd make sense to add an annotation for a type
which has to be returned non-zero?
What I have in mind is the following common flow:
int do_a_thing(struct my_obj *obj, int param)
{
int err;
err = first_step(obj, 1);
if (err)
return err;
if (some_check(obj)) {
err = -EINVAL; /* need explicit error set! */
goto err_undo_1s;
}
err = second_step(obj, param);
if (err)
goto err_undo_1s;
err = third_step(obj, 0);
if (err)
goto err_undo_2s;
return 0;
err_undo_2s:
second_undo(obj);
err_undo_1s:
first_undo(obj);
return err;
}
The variable err should never be returned when it's equal to 0.
So if we annotate it, let's say as:
int __nzret err;
could sparse then warn if we forgot to assign it after
"if (some_check(obj))"?
Am I the only one who thinks this would be a good idea?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists