2021-04-26 09:37:10

by Yang Li

Subject: [PATCH] mtd: return -ENOMEM when kmalloc failed

The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to
specify that a buffer allocation failed. Using the correct error
code is more intuitive

Smatch tool warning:
drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c:333 check_free_sectors() warn: returning -1
instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c:272 check_free_sectors() warn: returning -1
instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

No functional change, just more standardized.

Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yang Li <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c | 2 +-
drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c b/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
index af16d34..39d0241 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ static int check_free_sectors(struct INFTLrecord *inftl, unsigned int address,

buf = kmalloc(SECTORSIZE + mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!buf)
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;

ret = -1;
for (i = 0; i < len; i += SECTORSIZE) {
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c b/drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c
index 444a77b..fd331bc 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ static int check_free_sectors(struct NFTLrecord *nftl, unsigned int address, int

buf = kmalloc(SECTORSIZE + mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!buf)
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;

ret = -1;
for (i = 0; i < len; i += SECTORSIZE) {
--
1.8.3.1

2021-05-10 11:02:16

by Miquel Raynal

Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: return -ENOMEM when kmalloc failed

On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 09:32:23 UTC, Yang Li wrote:
> The driver is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to
> specify that a buffer allocation failed. Using the correct error
> code is more intuitive
>
> Smatch tool warning:
> drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c:333 check_free_sectors() warn: returning -1
> instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
> drivers/mtd/nftlmount.c:272 check_free_sectors() warn: returning -1
> instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
>
> No functional change, just more standardized.
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <[email protected]>

Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git mtd/next, thanks.

Miquel