On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:35:22 -0700 coverity-bot <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello! > > This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by > Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project: > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan > > You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified > lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits: > > Thu Nov 3 21:42:26 2022 +0000 > c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes") > > Coverity reported the following: > > *** CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) > drivers/iio/temperature/mlx90632.c:1270 in mlx90632_probe() > 1264 mlx90632->object_ambient_temperature = 25000; /* 25 degrees milliCelsius */ > 1265 mlx90632->interaction_ts = jiffies; /* Set initial value */ > 1266 > 1267 pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev); > 1268 pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev); > 1269 > vvv CID 1527134: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) > vvv Calling "devm_pm_runtime_enable" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 21 out of 24 times). > 1270 devm_pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev); > 1271 pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&client->dev, MLX90632_SLEEP_DELAY_MS); > 1272 pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&client->dev); > 1273 pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&client->dev); > 1274 > 1275 return devm_iio_device_register(&client->dev, indio_dev); > > If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as > such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make > sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please > include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first): > > Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527134 ("Error handling issues") > Fixes: c83d3e5ca97f ("iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes") > > Thanks for your attention! > I'll post a fix shortly. Looks like a simple ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable()... if (ret) return ret; will be enough here. Also turns out there is a missing static marking related to the pm support. I'll fix that too. Not sure why I didn't get a 0-day report for that. Thanks, Jonathan
