On 12/01/2021 10:22, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:37:36PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: >> On 11/01/2021 16:35, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:35:46PM +0000, Colin King wrote: >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Currently when attempting to start the BE fails because the >>>> FE is not started the error return variable ret is not initialized >>>> and garbage is returned. Fix this by setting it to 0 so the >>> >>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. >>> >> >> Current ASoC tree now has two commits: >> >> commit 4eeed5f40354735c4e68e71904db528ed19c9cbb >> Author: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Sat Jan 9 09:15:01 2021 +0530 >> >> ASoC: soc-pcm: return correct -ERRNO in failure path >> >> commit e91b65b36fde0690f1c694f17dd1b549295464a7 >> Author: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon Jan 11 12:50:21 2021 +0300 >> >> ASoC: soc-pcm: Fix an uninitialized error code >> >> ..both set ret to non-zero, which I believe will throw a subsequent >> warning messagethat's not strictly related. > > My patch restored the original behavior. And I think that errors should > return error codes. What you're saying is basically "Returning an error > is a bug because it will trigger an error message in the caller". So > then we have to have a debate about printks as a layering violation. > > I don't like error messages generally, because I think they make the > code messy. A lot of people put error messages for impossible things. > Or if a kmalloc() fails or whatever. There are too many error messages > which people add in an auto-pilot way without considering whether it's > necessary. > > But some people think, and maybe they're correct, that it's best if > every function in the call tree prints a message. That way you can > trace the error path easily. +1 Yep, good point, ignore my fix. Thanks Dan for your observations. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
