On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:35:25 +0300 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > We should set the error code here. Otherwise static checkers complain.
> >
>
> hm.
>
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c
> > @@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ int fsl_rio_setup(struct platform_device *dev)
> > rmu_node = of_parse_phandle(dev->dev.of_node, "fsl,srio-rmu-handle", 0);
> > if (!rmu_node) {
> > dev_err(&dev->dev, "No valid fsl,srio-rmu-handle property\n");
> > + rc = -ENOENT;
> > goto err_rmu;
> > }
> > rc = of_address_to_resource(rmu_node, 0, &rmu_regs);
>
> afaict the function will return 0 in this case, which is a flat out
> bug. But why do static checkers complain? The code will return a
> suitably initialized value?
>
> IOW, please always quote the checker/compiler output when fixing a bug!
Coccinelle has a check for missing error codes and I'm working on one
for Smatch as well.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
