Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement
To:     minyard@acm.org
Cc:     arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200408115958.2848-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
 <20200413113225.GB3587@minyard.net>
 <47c06465-9ae5-42c2-ca00-5c666521bbde@cmss.chinamobile.com>
 <20200413142348.GD3587@minyard.net>
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Message-ID: <3894dab2-0660-999c-6f4c-4b5b9ff57773@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:44:49 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200413142348.GD3587@minyard.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Corey:

On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？
> It's in my queue, so that's the plan.
>
>>>    I
>>> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check".
>> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？
> Correct.

Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied.


Then, I have some questions to ask you:

     I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there 
are another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is 
feasible, then I will submit the patch.

     Q1: About Format Problem

            In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, 
please check if the writing here is reasonable?


     Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq()

           1）In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of 
bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? （If your 
view is don't need to judge, the following will change.）


           2）According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the 
return value is negative,

                    if (!bt_bmc->irq)
                         return -ENODEV;

                so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is:

                      if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
                           return bt_bmc->irq;

                But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned 
to "0"，the easiest way is to delete the        403~404 line, handled 
directly by the function devm_request_irq().


         Q3：About dev_warm()

                 KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to 
dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses 
dev_info() to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 
should be redundant.


I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance.

Tang Bin