Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:39:17 -0800 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure |
| |
On 12/01, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > We were not checking the return from devm_add_action() which can fail. > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org> > --- > drivers/clk/qcom/common.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > index c112eba..3541a9a 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > @@ -213,7 +213,10 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > if (ret) > return ret; > > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, pdev->dev.of_node); > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, > + pdev->dev.of_node); > + if (ret) > + return ret;
So now we don't remove the clk provider on allocation failure? Confused.
> > reset = &cc->reset; > reset->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node; > @@ -236,8 +239,12 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > return ret; > } > > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev); > - > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev); > + if (ret) { > + if (desc->gdscs && desc->num_gdscs) > + gdsc_unregister(dev); > + return ret; > + } > > return 0; > }
You seem to have missed the reset devm action. Why?
Also, I wonder if we could have devm_add_action() or some other new devm_add_action() wrapper that tried to add the action, and if it failed it ran the action right there and returned the -ENOMEM? So then we can just have:
ret = devm_add_action_or_do_it(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev) if (ret) return ret;
and we're assured that on the failure path we'll have already called qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |