linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err

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: <dc5cd6e7-5cdb-4418-b67f-555a34138cba@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:42:23 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: ssantosh@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, jic23@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err_probe() to
 simplfy code

On 30/08/2024 12:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/08/2024 12:31, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 14:32-20240830, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>> Use the dev_err_probe() helper to simplify error handling
>>> during probe.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - Split into 2 patches.
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> index 15e41d3a5e22..eeec422a46f0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> @@ -708,17 +708,13 @@ static int knav_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>>  	int ret = 0;
>>>  
>>> -	if (!node) {
>>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not find device info\n");
>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (!node)
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, "could not find device info\n");
>>>  
>>>  	kdev = devm_kzalloc(dev,
>>>  			sizeof(struct knav_dma_pool_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> -	if (!kdev) {
>>> -		dev_err(dev, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
>>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (!kdev)
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
>>
>> These make no sense to me :( -> just using dev_err_probe when there is
>> no chance of -EPROBE_DEFER ?
> 
> Well, this does not make sense from other point of view - memory
> allocation errors should have any printks...

s/should/should not/

obviously :)

> 
> This patchset - like several others from Jinjie - is some sort of
> automation without careful consideration and without thinking whether
> code makes sense.
> 
> Therefore I suggest to review it thoroughly and do not trust the
> "innocent" look of such changes.


Best regards,
Krzysztof