Hello Dan,
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:08:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-ipu-core.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-ipu-core.c
> > index fc4dd7cedc11..6bd7c3f37ac0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-ipu-core.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-ipu-core.c
> > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ struct platform_device *__init imx_alloc_mx3_camera(
> >
> > pdev = platform_device_alloc("mx3-camera", 0);
> > if (!pdev)
> > - goto err;
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
> > pdev->dev.dma_mask = kmalloc(sizeof(*pdev->dev.dma_mask), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!pdev->dev.dma_mask)
>
> Emil, do this one, please and not the second suggestion.
Yes, I would pick this one to.
>
> Direct returns are more readable. Otherwise, you wonder what the goto
> is for and where it will take you and be annoyed to discover it is a
> waste of time, no-op goto. Also you will wonder if platform_device_put()
> accepts NULL pointers. Thirdly there is a small ugliness that the error
> code is not preserved. What is the point of setting the error code to
> -ENOMEM only to discard it?
>
> Let's look at that error handling again.
>
> err: <-- the name is not descriptive. the location is bad.
> kfree(pdev->dev.dma_mask); <- null dereference.
> platform_device_put(pdev); <- ok
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); <- should be "return ERR_PTR(ret);"
>
> 3 out of 4 of the lines are bad.
I agree that it's not very pretty.
Now that Uwe solved the issue regarding converting the function to
platform_device_register_full(), I will look into sending a second patch
that would remove these lines.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Emil Goode
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
