Received-SPF: pass (google.com: 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] block: rsxx: fix error return code of rsxx_pci_probe()
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, josh.h.morris@us.ibm.com,
        pjk1939@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210308100554.10375-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <cf2dd66c-0e1e-944e-f4c5-542095f6c9d7@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:59:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210308100554.10375-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/8/21 3:05 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Some error handling segments of rsxx_pci_probe() do not return error code, 
> so add error code for these segments.
> 
> Fixes: 8722ff8cdbfa ("block: IBM RamSan 70/80 device driver")
> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <oslab@tsinghua.edu.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/rsxx/core.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rsxx/core.c b/drivers/block/rsxx/core.c
> index 63f549889f87..6b3b9b31a3e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rsxx/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rsxx/core.c
> @@ -760,13 +760,17 @@ static int rsxx_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,
>  	pci_set_drvdata(dev, card);
>  
>  	st = ida_alloc(&rsxx_disk_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (st < 0)
> +	if (st < 0) {
> +		st = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto failed_ida_get;
> +	}
>  	card->disk_id = st;
>  
>  	st = pci_enable_device(dev);
> -	if (st)
> +	if (st) {
> +		st = -EIO;
>  		goto failed_enable;
> +	}
>  
>  	pci_set_master(dev);

Maybe there are some valid parts to the patch, but the two above at
least make no sense - we're returning the error here as passed from
ida_alloc or pci_enable_device, why are you overriding them?

-- 
Jens Axboe