Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:18:13 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd/uncore: fix error codes in amd_uncore_init()
Message-ID: <ZS0b9R9ufXQmohOh@gmail.com>
References: <cec62eba-c4b8-4cb7-9671-58894dd4b974@moroto.mountain>
 <ZSjyJuqk3z0RyKP2@gmail.com>
 <0c973a20-e10c-4989-b7d9-86cb0f522718@kadam.mountain>
 <ZSkInflBriOL9V3M@gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4b7F=MNMduRn99FFcAc7Of7RsL+vyXVzsiBZZ9hz0+HnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZSpZRM4ZEnNy98Rz@gmail.com>
 <f13b0b1a-e5f8-48db-9a09-1ef88cc6c6eb@kadam.mountain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f13b0b1a-e5f8-48db-9a09-1ef88cc6c6eb@kadam.mountain>
Precedence: bulk


* Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:

> The surprising thing is the Clang doesn't detect the bug either.  It's
> strange.  (I found this bug with Smatch).

Yeah, that's weird and kind of concerning. I don't think either compiler is 
able to see that the init function return values are always ignored. I had 
to dig into init/main.c to convince myself.

> Also I notice that my Fixes tag wasn't correct either.  That patch did 
> have a missing error code bug, but "ret" was set to zero.  :/

Yeah, so I left the Fixes tag out of the commit anyway, because this isn't 
really a fix that -stable should concern itself with. After the first 
commit it's not even a fix per se, but an improvement in the resolution & 
meaning of error codes or so.

Thanks,

	Ingo