[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230423115049.1c73600f@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:50:49 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Jiakai Luo <jkluo@...t.edu.cn>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Ksenija Stanojevic <ksenija.stanojevic@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: mxs-lradc: fix the order of two cleanup
operations
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:47:45 -0700
Jiakai Luo <jkluo@...t.edu.cn> wrote:
> Smatch reports:
> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c:766 mxs_lradc_adc_probe() warn:
> missing unwind goto?
>
> the order of three init operation:
> 1.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init
> 2.iio_triggered_buffer_setup
> 3.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_init
>
> thus, the order of three cleanup operation should be:
> 1.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop
> 2.iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup
> 3.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove
>
> we exchange the order of two cleanup operations,
> introducing the following differences:
> 1.if mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init fails, returns directly;
> 2.if trigger_init succeeds but iio_triggered_buffer_setup fails,
> goto err_trig and remove the trigger.
>
> In addition, we also reorder the unwind that goes on in the
> remove() callback to match the new ordering.
>
> Fixes: 6dd112b9f85e ("iio: adc: mxs-lradc: Add support for ADC driver")
> Signed-off-by: Jiakai Luo <jkluo@...t.edu.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
If resending please state why. I'm guessing on this occasion it was because
you realised a fresh thread is expected for a new patch.
Also, even if you are just amending the patch description, please increase
the version number so that we can be sure we are looking at latest version.
I already picked it from the earlier posting and this appears unchanged
so all's well that ends well!
Jonathan
> ---
> The issue is found by static analysis and remains untested.
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c
> index bca79a93cbe4..85882509b7d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c
> @@ -757,13 +757,13 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ret = mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init(iio);
> if (ret)
> - goto err_trig;
> + return ret;
>
> ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(iio, &iio_pollfunc_store_time,
> &mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_handler,
> &mxs_lradc_adc_buffer_ops);
> if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + goto err_trig;
>
> adc->vref_mv = mxs_lradc_adc_vref_mv[lradc->soc];
>
> @@ -801,9 +801,9 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> err_dev:
> mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc);
> - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio);
> -err_trig:
> iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio);
> +err_trig:
> + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -814,8 +814,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> iio_device_unregister(iio);
> mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc);
> - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio);
> iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio);
> + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio);
>
> return 0;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists