Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220607145639.2362750-1-tzungbi@kernel.org> <20220607145639.2362750-9-tzungbi@kernel.org>
 <CABXOdTdx7jKLbHa3X7aOz3wUMpwWWHkncfKuRyGzonkA92Rg=w@mail.gmail.com> <YqAGmpdTfZsa7Lux@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YqAGmpdTfZsa7Lux@google.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 07:37:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CABXOdTexvEoaRvOdoTeoHoGpHqHPPHvJAL8sYSBS4fn7eLkCgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: handle empty
 payload in getting proto info
To:     Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        "open list:CHROME HARDWARE PLATFORM SUPPORT" 
        <chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:17 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:47:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > cros_ec_get_proto_info() expects to receive
> > > sizeof(struct ec_response_get_protocol_info) from send_command().  The
> > > payload is valid only if the return value is positive.
> > >
> > > Add Kunit tests for returning 0 in send_command() and handle the case in
> > > cros_ec_get_proto_info().
> > >
> > That should be two separate patches.
>
> Ack, will separate them in next version.  I put them together because I wrote
> Kunit test first to make sure the second half takes effect (somehow TDD).
>
> Could I still put the Kunit patch first (even if it introduces Kunit test
> failure)?
>

Sorry, I am running behind with e-mails.

If you want to, but why not let the fix come first ? If the unit test
patch is first, mayle add a note after --- indicating that it is
expected to fail and will be fixed with the next patch.

Thanks,
Guenter

> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > No v1.  New in the series.
> > >
> > >  drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c      |   5 +
> > >  drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 137 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c
> > > index 893b76703da6..6f5be9e5ede4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c
> > > @@ -314,6 +314,11 @@ static int cros_ec_get_proto_info(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev, int devidx)
> > >                 goto exit;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       if (ret == 0) {
> > > +               ret = -EPROTO;
> > > +               goto exit;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> >
> > I think you can move that into the if() statement above (which already
> > checks for ret >=0),
> > making it a special case of that situation.
>
> Nope, there is no "ret >= 0" (you could be confusing with
> cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask()).
>
> The result flow roughly like:
>
> ret = send_command(...);
> if (ret < 0)
>   goto exit;
>
> mapped = cros_ec_map_error(...);
> if (mapped) {
>   ...
>   goto exit;
> }
>
> if (ret == 0) {
>   ...
>   goto exit;
> }