Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] staging: atomisp: Remove non-ACPI leftovers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > @@ -914,9 +904,7 @@ static int lm3554_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  		dev_err(&client->dev, "gpio request/direction_output fail");
> >  		goto fail2;
> >  	}
> > -	if (ACPI_HANDLE(&client->dev))
> > -		err = atomisp_register_i2c_module(&flash->sd, NULL, LED_FLASH);
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return atomisp_register_i2c_module(&flash->sd, NULL, LED_FLASH);
> >  fail2:
> >  	media_entity_cleanup(&flash->sd.entity);
> >  	v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&flash->ctrl_handler);
>
> Actually every place where we directly return a function call is wrong
> and needs error handling added.  I've been meaning to write a Smatch
> check for this because it's a common anti-pattern we don't check the
> last function call for errors.
>
> Someone could probably do the same in Coccinelle if they want.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting.  Is every case of return f(...);
for any f wrong?  Or is it a particular function that is of concern?  Or
would it be that every function call that has error handling somewhere
should have error handling everywhere?  Or is it related to what seems to
be the problem in the above code that err is initialized but nothing
happens to it?

julia
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux