2021-05-19 08:06:04

by Siddharth Gupta

Subject: [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc: core: Cleanup device in case of failure

When a failure occurs in rproc_add() it returns an error, but does
not cleanup after itself. This change adds the failure path in such
cases.

Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <[email protected]>
---
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index 45d09bf..6f5fa81 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -2326,8 +2326,10 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
return ret;

ret = device_add(dev);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ put_device(dev);
+ goto rproc_remove_cdev;
+ }

dev_info(dev, "%s is available\n", rproc->name);

@@ -2338,7 +2340,7 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
if (rproc->auto_boot) {
ret = rproc_trigger_auto_boot(rproc);
if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ goto rproc_remove_dev;
}

/* expose to rproc_get_by_phandle users */
@@ -2347,6 +2349,13 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
mutex_unlock(&rproc_list_mutex);

return 0;
+
+rproc_remove_dev:
+ rproc_delete_debug_dir(rproc);
+ device_del(dev);
+rproc_remove_cdev:
+ rproc_char_device_remove(rproc);
+ return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_add);

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

2021-05-28 06:12:44

by Bjorn Andersson

Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc: core: Cleanup device in case of failure

On Mon 17 May 15:45 CDT 2021, Siddharth Gupta wrote:

> When a failure occurs in rproc_add() it returns an error, but does
> not cleanup after itself. This change adds the failure path in such
> cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 45d09bf..6f5fa81 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2326,8 +2326,10 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
> return ret;
>
> ret = device_add(dev);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + put_device(dev);
> + goto rproc_remove_cdev;
> + }
>
> dev_info(dev, "%s is available\n", rproc->name);
>
> @@ -2338,7 +2340,7 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
> if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> ret = rproc_trigger_auto_boot(rproc);
> if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + goto rproc_remove_dev;
> }
>
> /* expose to rproc_get_by_phandle users */
> @@ -2347,6 +2349,13 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
> mutex_unlock(&rproc_list_mutex);
>
> return 0;
> +
> +rproc_remove_dev:
> + rproc_delete_debug_dir(rproc);
> + device_del(dev);
> +rproc_remove_cdev:
> + rproc_char_device_remove(rproc);

I'm confused, shouldn't this function just do cdev_del()?
__unregister_chrdev() seems to do more than unroll what cdev_add()
did...

Apart from this, I think the patch looks good. Really nice to see you
tidy this up!

Regards,
Bjorn

> + return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_add);
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>