On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
<moritz.fischer.private@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>
>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> - break;
>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> err_out:
>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>> out:
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>
>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>
>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>
>>
>> out:
>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>> return err;
>>
>> err_out:
>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>
> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
> common pattern,
> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
Both are ugly. Just do:
if (err)
pr_err(...);
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
