Hi Rob,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 09:06:08AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/26/16 13:39, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
> >>
> >> -Frank
> >
> > I succumbed to looking only at the few lines of code above and not the
> > fuller context of the file that the patch applies to.
> >
> > The proposed patch was fixing the problem that a normal completion
> > of the for loop was falling through into the err_out label. So what
> > looks cleaner ("if (err) pr_err(...)") is actually not correct.
>
> What!? The *only* problem was printing the error message in the err=0
> case. All that needs to be fixed is not doing that. If we do that,
> then we really only need 1 goto label.
I think you're right. Can you look at my v3 that I sent. I also tried to
fix cases where we can just do
return 0;
vs.
err = 0;
goto err
...
err:
of_node_put(NULL /*tree_symbols is NULL*/);
return err;
Thanks,
Moritz
--
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
