2017-12-06 14:54:18

by Ivan Khoronzhuk

Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: cpdma: correct error handling for chan create

It's not correct to return NULL when that is actually an error and
function returns errors in any other wrong case. In the same time,
the cpsw driver and davinci emac doesn't check error case while
creating channel and it can miss actual error. Correct this mess.

Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 12 +++++++++---
drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_emac.c | 9 +++++++--
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
index a60a378..ee58f48 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
@@ -3065,10 +3065,16 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
}

cpsw->txv[0].ch = cpdma_chan_create(cpsw->dma, 0, cpsw_tx_handler, 0);
+ if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch))) {
+ dev_err(priv->dev, "error initializing tx dma channel\n");
+ ret = PTR_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch);
+ goto clean_dma_ret;
+ }
+
cpsw->rxv[0].ch = cpdma_chan_create(cpsw->dma, 0, cpsw_rx_handler, 1);
- if (WARN_ON(!cpsw->rxv[0].ch || !cpsw->txv[0].ch)) {
- dev_err(priv->dev, "error initializing dma channels\n");
- ret = -ENOMEM;
+ if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(cpsw->rxv[0].ch))) {
+ dev_err(priv->dev, "error initializing rx dma channel\n");
+ ret = PTR_ERR(cpsw->rxv[0].ch);
goto clean_dma_ret;
}

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
index dbe9167..a9fab42 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
@@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ struct cpdma_chan *cpdma_chan_create(struct cpdma_ctlr *ctlr, int chan_num,
chan_num = rx_type ? rx_chan_num(chan_num) : tx_chan_num(chan_num);

if (__chan_linear(chan_num) >= ctlr->num_chan)
- return NULL;
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

chan = devm_kzalloc(ctlr->dev, sizeof(*chan), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!chan)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_emac.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_emac.c
index f58c0c6..3d4af64 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_emac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_emac.c
@@ -1870,10 +1870,15 @@ static int davinci_emac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

priv->txchan = cpdma_chan_create(priv->dma, EMAC_DEF_TX_CH,
emac_tx_handler, 0);
+ if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(priv->txchan))) {
+ rc = PTR_ERR(priv->txchan);
+ goto no_cpdma_chan;
+ }
+
priv->rxchan = cpdma_chan_create(priv->dma, EMAC_DEF_RX_CH,
emac_rx_handler, 1);
- if (WARN_ON(!priv->txchan || !priv->rxchan)) {
- rc = -ENOMEM;
+ if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(priv->rxchan))) {
+ rc = PTR_ERR(priv->rxchan);
goto no_cpdma_chan;
}

--
2.7.4

2017-12-06 21:38:20

by David Miller

Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: cpdma: correct error handling for chan create

From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:54:09 +0200

> @@ -3065,10 +3065,16 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> cpsw->txv[0].ch = cpdma_chan_create(cpsw->dma, 0, cpsw_tx_handler, 0);
> + if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch))) {
> + dev_err(priv->dev, "error initializing tx dma channel\n");
> + ret = PTR_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch);
> + goto clean_dma_ret;
> + }
> +

You're already emitting a proper dev_err() message, therefore WARN_ON()
is a duplicate notification to the logs and therefore not appropriate.

2017-12-07 19:56:36

by Ivan Khoronzhuk

Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: cpdma: correct error handling for chan create

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:38:14PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:54:09 +0200
>
> > @@ -3065,10 +3065,16 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> >
> > cpsw->txv[0].ch = cpdma_chan_create(cpsw->dma, 0, cpsw_tx_handler, 0);
> > + if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch))) {
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "error initializing tx dma channel\n");
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(cpsw->txv[0].ch);
> > + goto clean_dma_ret;
> > + }
> > +
>
> You're already emitting a proper dev_err() message, therefore WARN_ON()
> is a duplicate notification to the logs and therefore not appropriate.

Yes, will remove unneeded WARNs

--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk