Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18685-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231206151600.26833-1-quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
 <20231208203128.GA2646347-robh@kernel.org> <CAOuPNLg90T69USVQ8Ti6c8fXb_XrnaR035in_CbJHmNMUYLqOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOuPNLj4_pQiAHoER2VJpW_2NEaq8+zF8p1br+tf0Toe1t1UDg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOuPNLj4_pQiAHoER2VJpW_2NEaq8+zF8p1br+tf0Toe1t1UDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 23:31:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOuPNLh+V1-Uu_rnnbdu7p6DGjHOJf0yJnaxnchwpzh_YyP=_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: reserved_mem: fix error log for reserved mem init failure
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, vichy.kuo@gmail.com
Cc: Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 22:47, Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 20:13, Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 02:01, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:46:00PM +0530, Pintu Kumar wrote:
> > > > During fdt_init_reserved_mem() when __reserved_mem_init_node()
> > > > fail we are using pr_info to print error.
> > > >
> > > > So, if we change the loglevel to 4 (or below), this error
> > > > message will be missed.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, change the pr_info to pr_err for fail case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> > > > index 7ec94cfcbddb..473665e76b6f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> > > > @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ void __init fdt_init_reserved_mem(void)
> > > >               if (err == 0) {
> > > >                       err = __reserved_mem_init_node(rmem);
> > > >                       if (err != 0 && err != -ENOENT) {
> > > > -                             pr_info("node %s compatible matching fail\n",
> > > > +                             pr_err("node %s compatible matching fail\n",
> > >
> > > Isn't the message just wrong. If compatible match fails, we return
> > > ENOENT. The failure here would be from the init function.
> > >
> > Okay.
> > You mean to say, if __reserved_mem_init_node fails with default err
> > (ENOENT) then it may not hit this condition.
> > Instead it will hit the 'else' case which is wrong ?
> > Also, the "initfn" inside "__reserved_mem_init_node" may fail in which
> > case also it may return default err.
> >
> > Maybe, the initial author's intention was to free the memory only if
> > the failure type is not the default ENOENT type.
> >
> > This seems to be a different issue.
> > Can we address this separately in a different patch ?
> >
> > And how do we fix this ?
> > One option is to add another "if" condition with just ENOENT error check ?
> > if (err == -ENOENT) {
> >     pr_err("node %s compatible matching fail\n", rmem->name);
> >     return;
> > }
> > Then, correct the existing log with a different message:
> > pr_err("node %s matching reserved mem not found.\n", rmem->name);
> > Or, add one more "if else" condition ?
> > Or, fix the calling function itself : __reserved_mem_init_node ?
> >
>
> Any further comments on this ?

Any further comments or suggestions on the above ?
Shall we just fix the log message, or correct the if/else case as well ?