Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:12:34 +0530
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure
Message-ID: <20151203084234.GA5724@sudip-pc>
References: <1448960770-10815-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
 <20151203073917.GE14699@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151203073917.GE14699@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2240
Lines: 70

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:39:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/01, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > We were not checking the return from devm_add_action() which can fail.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/qcom/common.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > index c112eba..3541a9a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c
> > @@ -213,7 +213,10 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, pdev->dev.of_node);
> > +	ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider,
> > +			      pdev->dev.of_node);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> 
> So now we don't remove the clk provider on allocation failure?
> Confused.
> 
> >  
> >  	reset = &cc->reset;
> >  	reset->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node;
> > @@ -236,8 +239,12 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >  			return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> > -
> > +	ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		if (desc->gdscs && desc->num_gdscs)
> > +			gdsc_unregister(dev);
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> You seem to have missed the reset devm action. Why?

I have messed up pretty bad in this patch. :(
> 
> Also, I wonder if we could have devm_add_action() or some other
> new devm_add_action() wrapper that tried to add the action, and
> if it failed it ran the action right there and returned the
> -ENOMEM? So then we can just have:
> 
> 	ret = devm_add_action_or_do_it(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev)
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
> 
> and we're assured that on the failure path we'll have already
> called qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister.

I am on it, will send you a patch for this.

regards
sudip
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/