Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement | From | Tang Bin <> | Date | Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:44:49 +0800 |
| |
Hi Corey:
On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote: >> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8? > It's in my queue, so that's the plan. > >>> I >>> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". >> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch? > Correct.
Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied.
Then, I have some questions to ask you:
I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there are another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is feasible, then I will submit the patch.
Q1: About Format Problem
In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, please check if the writing here is reasonable?
Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq()
1)In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? (If your view is don't need to judge, the following will change.)
2)According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the return value is negative,
if (!bt_bmc->irq) return -ENODEV;
so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is:
if (bt_bmc->irq < 0) return bt_bmc->irq;
But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned to "0",the easiest way is to delete the 403~404 line, handled directly by the function devm_request_irq().
Q3:About dev_warm()
KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 should be redundant.
I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance.
Tang Bin
| |