[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55920694-04e2-480f-a67c-c0dc1604a4b8@web.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 13:12:12 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [1/3] PCI: j721e: Propagate dev_err_probe return value
>>>> I propose to take another source code transformation approach better into account.
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17.1/source/drivers/base/core.c#L5031-L5075
>>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17.1/source/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c#L444-L636
>>>>
>>>> ret = dev_err_probe(dev, cdns_pcie_init_phy(dev, cdns_pcie), "Failed to init phy\n");
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> goto err_get_sync;
>>>>
>>> No, the correct code ensures that dev_err_probe() is only called when
>>> an actual error
>>> has occurred, providing a clear and accurate log entry. …
>>
>> Where do you see undesirable technical differences?
>
> The primary issue I wanted to confirm was the function execution order.
The desired control flow can be clarified in some ways.
> since cdns_pcie_init_phy within dev_err_probe function
One function should be executed before its return value will be directly passed
to a subsequent function call, shouldn't it?
> If other developers agree with the approach, I will modify this in a
> separate patch
There might be special coding style preferences involved (for a while).
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists