Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27467-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:35:09 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com>
Cc: vichy.kuo@gmail.com, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: reserved_mem: fix error log for reserved mem init
 failure
Message-ID: <20240116143509.GA3845101-robh@kernel.org>
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>
 <CAOuPNLh+V1-Uu_rnnbdu7p6DGjHOJf0yJnaxnchwpzh_YyP=_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOuPNLh+V1-Uu_rnnbdu7p6DGjHOJf0yJnaxnchwpzh_YyP=_Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 11:31:12PM +0530, Pintu Agarwal wrote:
> 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 ?

It looked to me like the original author's intent was this is not an 
error. Either convince me otherwise or wait for me to study this 
further. This code gets a lot of drive-by patches and what is "correct" 
isn't always clear.

Rob