[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSkH64SpvOTOJSpE@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:03:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd/uncore: fix error codes in amd_uncore_init()
* Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com> wrote:
> On 10/13/2023 12:48 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Some of the error paths in this function return don't initialize the
> > error code. Return -ENODEV.
> >
> > Fixes: d6389d3ccc13 ("perf/x86/amd/uncore: Refactor uncore management")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
> > index 9b444ce24108..a389828f378c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
> > @@ -1009,7 +1009,8 @@ static struct amd_uncore uncores[UNCORE_TYPE_MAX] = {
> > static int __init amd_uncore_init(void)
> > {
> > struct amd_uncore *uncore;
> > - int ret, i;
> > + int ret = -ENODEV;
> > + int i;
> >
> > if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
> > boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
>
>
> Thanks for catching this. I see that 'ret' remains uninitialized for cases
> where the hotplug callback registration fails and was thinking if the
> following is a better fix for this as the reason might not be ENODEV.
Yeah, passing through the real error codes is usually better.
Here's it's probably a bit academic, as I don't think we are even using the
init return code in the init sequence iterator, see how the return code by
do_one_initcall() gets ignored by do_initcall_level() & do_pre_smp_initcalls() ...
Nevertheless, mind submitting this as a separate patch?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists