[+cc Keith, Sinan, Oza] Please run "git log --oneline drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c" and make your subject match the existing style. Also, please run "scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c" and cc people who seem interested in the file. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 04:17:19PM +0800, Jiecheng Wu wrote: > Function dpc_probe() defined in drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c calls pci_find_ext_capability(). Function pci_find_ext_capability() returns the address of the requested extended capability structure within the device's PCI configuration space or 0 if the device does not support it. The return value of this function should be checked against 0. Needs a signed-off-by before I can apply it. See https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#n416 > --- > drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c > index f03279f..30ff550 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c > @@ -226,6 +226,8 @@ static int dpc_probe(struct pcie_device *dev) > return -ENOMEM; > > dpc->cap_pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DPC); > + if (!dpc->cap_pos) > + return -ENODEV; Keith is right that we shouldn't get here if there's no DPC capability. But it's a pain for readers to verify that because that check is buried in the portdrv driver, so I'm not opposed to adding a check here. If we do add a check, I would move the pci_find_ext_capability() and the check up above the devm_kzalloc(). I know devm will take care of the cleanup, but I think it's better style to check for things that require no cleanup first, before doing the things that do require cleanup. > dpc->dev = dev; > set_service_data(dev, dpc); > > -- > 2.6.4 >
