linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 08/28] leds: lgm-sso: Put fwnode in any case during ->probe()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd4K1KG5VRsfDCMWftKmdB=1M9+UoGVtacaOtcWES9wrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 May 2021 13:46:08 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy 
        <mallikarjunax.reddy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>,
        Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@...il.com>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/28] leds: lgm-sso: Put fwnode in any case during ->probe()

On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 12:28 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:08 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:

> > > @@ -734,10 +736,15 @@ static int sso_led_dt_parse(struct sso_led_priv *priv)
> > >       if (fw_ssoled) {
> > >               ret = __sso_led_dt_parse(priv, fw_ssoled);
> > >               if (ret)
> > > -                     return ret;
> > > +                     goto err_child_out;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     fwnode_handle_put(fw_ssoled);
> > >       return 0;
> > > +
> > > +err_child_out:
> > > +     fwnode_handle_put(fw_ssoled);
> > > +     return ret;
> > >  }
> >
> > Just delete the return and you get the same effect, no? No need to
> > have two exits here.
>
> Okay, I have tried and neither result is better:
> option 1. Add ret = 0, but keep the label
> option 2. Assign 0 to ret at the definition stage and replace return
> with break and remove return 0 (I don't like that ret assigned to 0 in
> the definition block. It usually may lead to subtle errors)
> option 3+. Something I missed which you see can be done?
>
> Which one do you prefer?

I found option 3 which is better and follows your suggestion (I suppose).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko