linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe failure/removal

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: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:18:42 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
 Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
 Thippeswamy Havalige <thippeswamy.havalige@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe
 failure/removal

On 5/23/24 16:11, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> …
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
>>> …
>>>> @@ -817,11 +818,23 @@ static int nwl_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>  		err = nwl_pcie_enable_msi(pcie);
>>>>  		if (err < 0) {
>>>>  			dev_err(dev, "failed to enable MSI support: %d\n", err);
>>>> -			return err;
>>>> +			goto err_clk;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>
>>>> -	return pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>>> +	err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>>> +
>>>> +err_clk:
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>> +		clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
>>>
>>> I suggest to use the label “disable_unprepare_clock” directly before this function call
>>> (in the if branch) so that a duplicate check would be avoided after some error cases.
>>
>> Well if you want to avoid a check, we can just do
>>
>> err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>> if (!err)
>> 	return 0;
>>
>> err_clk:
>> 	...
> 
> This design variant can also be reasonable.
> 
> Do any preferences matter here for label name selections?

Personally, I prefer to use labels named after what they're cleaning up and not what they're doing.

--Sean