linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] pmdomain: renesas: rcar-gen4-sysc: Use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths

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]

Message-ID: <a20a940a-2d81-465a-8c26-9a7f09a5d477@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:12:27 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
 Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
 Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] pmdomain: renesas: rcar-gen4-sysc: Use scoped
 device node handling to simplify error paths

On 27/08/2024 12:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> So it's perfectly fine to have:
> 
>     static int __init rcar_gen4_sysc_pd_init(void)
>     {
>             struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = NULL;
>             struct rcar_gen4_pm_domains *domains;
>             const struct rcar_gen4_sysc_info *info;
>             const struct of_device_id *match;
>             void __iomem *base;
>             unsigned int i;
>             int error;
> 
>             np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL,
> rcar_gen4_sysc_matches, &match);
>             if (!np)
>                     return -ENODEV;
> 
>             ...
>     }

It is not perfectly fine because it does not match the preference of
having declaration with the constructor. See responses from Linus.

> 
> But my first suggestion:
> 
>     static int __init rcar_gen4_sysc_pd_init(void)
>     {
>             struct device_node *np __free(device_node) =
>                     of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL,
> rcar_gen4_sysc_matches, &match);
>             struct rcar_gen4_pm_domains *domains;
>             const struct rcar_gen4_sysc_info *info;
>             const struct of_device_id *match;
>             void __iomem *base;
>             unsigned int i;
>             int error;
> 
>             if (!np)
>                     return -ENODEV;
> 
>             ...
>     }
> 
> is safer w.r.t. to future modification.

Indeed, sure, I will re-write it above.



Best regards,
Krzysztof