> As the possible failure of the dma_set_max_seg_size(), we should better > check the return value of the dma_set_max_seg_size(). Please avoid the repetition of a function name in such a change description. Can it be improved with corresponding imperative wordings? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc5#n94 … > +++ b/drivers/s390/net/ism_drv.c > @@ -620,7 +620,9 @@ static int ism_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id) > goto err_resource; > > dma_set_seg_boundary(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M - 1); > - dma_set_max_seg_size(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M); > + ret = dma_set_max_seg_size(&pdev->dev, SZ_1M); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > pci_set_master(pdev); … 1. Will the shown dma_set_seg_boundary() call trigger similar software development concerns? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/include/linux/dma-mapping.h#L562 2. Would the following statement be more appropriate for the proposed completion of the exception handling? + goto err_resource; 3. Under which circumstances would you become interested to increase the application of scope-based resource management here? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L8 Regards, Markus
