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
