linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Delete duplicate source code in ub960_parse_dt

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:02:41 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Delete duplicate source code in
 ub960_parse_dt_rxports()

Huomenta,

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:49:19AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/03/2024 10:46, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Hi Markus,
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 08:46:25AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 08:23:24 +0100
> > > 
> > > Avoid the specification of a duplicate fwnode_handle_put() call
> > > in this function implementation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 5 +----
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > index ffe5f25f8647..eb708ed7b56e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > @@ -3486,10 +3486,7 @@ static int ub960_parse_dt_rxports(struct ub960_data *priv)
> > >   		}
> > >   	}
> > > 
> > > -	fwnode_handle_put(links_fwnode);
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > > -
> > > +	ret = 0;
> > 
> > I think it'd be nicer to initialise ret as zero, then you can just drop the
> > assignment above.
> 
> I don't like successful execution entering error paths. That's why there's
> the return 0.

It could be called a common cleanup path as what you really want to do here
is to put the fwnode handle, independently of whether there was an error.
I think the current code is of course fine, too.

Soon you can do

	struct fwnode_handle *links_fwnode __free(fwnode_handle);

and forget about putting it (but you must need putting it).

-- 
Terveisin,

Sakari Ailus