Hi Rafał, > I'd appreciate description why do we need this change other than > addressing some Coverity report. I've been looking at Coverity for bugs to fix when it was brought up on the kernel-janitors mailing list as a way to gain experience with the kernel tree. This issue stood out to me specifically because all other instances of nvmem_add_one_cell (in core.c, onie-tlv.c, and sl28vpd.c) are checked for errors. I figured I'd add a check for the one in u-boot-env.c so that they're all covered, but I understand if this is a case where we don't want to try to fix something that isn't necessarily broken. > Should a single nvmem_add_one_cell() failure result in not registering > NVMEM device at all? Why? I see that the only place where the return value of u_boot_env_add_cells gets checked is in the same file on line 192, where u_boot_env_parse sets err. The only time err won't be 0 is if info.name causes u_boot_env_add_cells to return -ENOMEM. So is that the only case where err should be set, or should err report if any cells failed to register? I followed the logic backwards and found that .probe is set to whatever u_boot_env_probe return, so I'm guessing it's a matter of what .probe should include or not. Let me know if my logic is incorrect anywhere. Thanks, Nick Spooner
