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] sfc-falcon: Fix missing error code in ef4_reset_up()
To:     Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1622545602-19483-1-git-send-email-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0cfa46c-9545-2c6d-fd03-a97f0a3c4869@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:22:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1622545602-19483-1-git-send-email-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/06/2021 12:06, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> The error code is missing in this code scenario, add the error code
> '-EINVAL' to the return value 'rc'.
> 
> Eliminate the follow smatch warning:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c:2389 ef4_reset_up() warn: missing
> error code 'rc'.
> 
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> index 5e7a57b..d336c24 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> @@ -2385,8 +2385,10 @@ int ef4_reset_up(struct ef4_nic *efx, enum reset_type method, bool ok)
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!ok)
> +	if (!ok) {
> +		rc = -EINVAL;
>  		goto fail;
> +	}
Not sure this is correct.  Without the patch, we return with rc == 0
 (set by the efx->type->init() call just above), which seems reasonable
 as we successfully finished a RESET_TYPE_DISABLE.
The label name 'fail:' might be misleading; it does seem like this is
 intended behaviour.
Have you tested this at all?

Note that the sfc driver (efx_common.c) does much the same thing as the
 code here before your patch.

-ed

>  
>  	if (efx->port_initialized && method != RESET_TYPE_INVISIBLE &&
>  	    method != RESET_TYPE_DATAPATH) {
>