2023-06-08 02:03:09

by Li zeming

Subject: [PATCH] time: alarmtimer: Optimization function return value

Replace -1 return values with -EPERM.

Signed-off-by: Li zeming <[email protected]>
---
kernel/time/alarmtimer.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
index 82b28ab0f328..e918d556dd51 100644
--- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
@@ -92,9 +92,9 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
return -EBUSY;

if (!test_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc->features))
- return -1;
+ return -EPERM;
if (!device_may_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
- return -1;
+ return -EPERM;

pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer",
PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, NULL, 0);
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
spin_lock_irqsave(&rtcdev_lock, flags);
if (!IS_ERR(pdev) && !rtcdev) {
if (!try_module_get(rtc->owner)) {
- ret = -1;
+ ret = -EPERM;
goto unlock;
}

@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
get_device(dev);
pdev = NULL;
} else {
- ret = -1;
+ ret = -EPERM;
}
unlock:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtcdev_lock, flags);
--
2.18.2

2023-06-10 12:49:10

by Thomas Gleixner

Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: alarmtimer: Optimization function return value

On Sat, Jun 10 2023 at 02:09, Li zeming wrote:
> if (!test_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc->features))
> - return -1;
> + return -EPERM;

I know you are only replacing the -1, but EPERM does not make any sense
here. It's not a permission problem, it's the lack of a feature. So the
proper code is -ENODEV.

> if (!device_may_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
> - return -1;
> + return -EPERM;

Ditto

> pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer",
> PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, NULL, 0);
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rtcdev_lock, flags);
> if (!IS_ERR(pdev) && !rtcdev) {
> if (!try_module_get(rtc->owner)) {
> - ret = -1;
> + ret = -EPERM;

Same here.

But this error case is broken because it does not undo the

device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, true);

So this needs

+ device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, false);

before the goto

> goto unlock;
> }
>
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev)
> get_device(dev);
> pdev = NULL;
> } else {
> - ret = -1;
> + ret = -EPERM;

ENODEV

> }

So please do not blindly replace something without actually analysing
it. There is a reason why these things are not just "fixed" with a
script.

Thanks,

tglx