[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zhl0_8whWU1ftFeJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:53:03 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Make dev_err_probe() silent for -ENOMEM
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 07:47:43PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 08:07:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 07:03:01PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 07:51:48PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 06:44:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > For an out-of-memory error there should be no additional output. Adapt
> > > > > dev_err_probe() to not emit the error message when err is -ENOMEM.
> > > > > This simplifies handling errors that might among others be -ENOMEM.
..
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON(err == -ENOMEM);
> > > >
> > > > Done!
> > >
> > > Well no, that doesn't do the trick. Consider for example device_add().
> > > That function can return (at least) -EINVAL and -ENOMEM. To properly
> > > ensure that the error handling is silent with the current
> > > dev_err_probe(), we'd need to do:
> > >
> > > ret = device_add(...);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > if (ret != -ENOMEM)
> > > return dev_err_probe(...);
> > > else
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > With my suggested patch this can be reduced to:
> > >
> > > ret = device_add(...);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return dev_err_probe(...);
> >
> > Fair enough, but these two should be combined.
> > Mine is for the rejecting a dead code on the phase of the submission.
>
> So something like the following on top of my change (only compile
> tested):
Hmm, but why macro? Shouldn't compiler be clever enough to see it even for
the exported function?
..
> I don't know if the kernel doc for dev_err_probe() should move to
> include/linux/dev_printk.h then?!
Not if you mark it for the __ variant.
But it has other kernel-doc formatting issues...
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists