This if condition is reversed. But fortunately, it has very little
impact on runtime behavior.
Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
index 075c52fe82e5..a9fe7d243807 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;
ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
- if (!ret)
+ if (ret)
return ret;
return 0;
--
2.43.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:38:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> - if (!ret)
> + if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> return 0;
Clearly a better fix here would just be to remove the conditional
entirely.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:43:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:38:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> > - if (!ret)
> > + if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > return 0;
>
> Clearly a better fix here would just be to remove the conditional
> entirely.
Hm... Actually, it should be:
if (ret) {
put_device(priv->card_dev);
return ret;
}
return 0;
Let me resend with that instead.
regards,
dan carpenter