[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6955339f-9bc5-4a84-acdc-205b90d4127c@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:37:04 +0530
From: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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()
On 10/13/2023 2:33 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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?
>
Sure. Will do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists