On 09/06/2021 15:36, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Tomi,
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:53:54AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 07/06/2021 11:00, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 10:44:17AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 04/06/2021 16:47, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
cal_async_notifier_complete() doesn't handle errors returned from
cal_ctx_v4l2_register(). Add the error handling.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c b/drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c
index ba8821a3b262..9e051c2e84a9 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c
@@ -743,8 +743,12 @@ static int cal_async_notifier_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
int ret = 0;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cal->ctx); ++i) {
- if (cal->ctx[i])
- cal_ctx_v4l2_register(cal->ctx[i]);
+ if (!cal->ctx[i])
+ continue;
+
+ ret = cal_ctx_v4l2_register(cal->ctx[i]);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
This part looks good, so
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Don't we need to call cal_ctx_v4l2_unregister() in the error path of
cal_async_notifier_register() though ?
Hmm, can you elaborate? I don't understand where and why we need to call
the unregister.
cal_async_notifier_complete() can be called synchronously by
v4l2_async_notifier_register() if all async subdevs are present. If
cal_ctx_v4l2_register() fails for one contexts, the failure will be
propagated to cal_async_notifier_register(), then to
cal_media_register(), and cal_probe(). Unless I'm mistaken, the contexts
for which cal_ctx_v4l2_register() succeeded will not be cleaned
properly.
Right. I think this can be solved easily by unrolling in the complete callback:
@@ -748,7 +748,16 @@ static int cal_async_notifier_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
ret = cal_ctx_v4l2_register(cal->ctx[i]);
if (ret)
- return ret;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (ret) {
+ unsigned int j;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < i; ++j)
+ cal_ctx_v4l2_unregister(cal->ctx[j]);
This could also be written
for ( ; i > 0; --i)
cal_ctx_v4l2_unregister(cal->ctx[i-1]);
to avoid an additional variable, it's up to you.
Yes, that's a bit nicer.
+
+ return ret;
}
if (cal_mc_api)
You also need to cal_ctx_v4l2_unregister() if the call in the next line
fails.
Ah, indeed. Thanks!
Tomi
