On 26/04/2021 08:56, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 08:45:44AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/04/2021 12:14, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 05:54:16PM +0800, tiantao (H) wrote: >>>> >>>> 在 2021/4/23 17:47, Greg KH 写道: >>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 05:39:00PM +0800, Tian Tao wrote: >>>>>> The value of 'ret' is not used, so just delete it. >> >> Tian Tao, please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get the list of >> people needed for Cc. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tian Tao <tiantao6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 1 - >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>>>> index d9e4b67..d269d75 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>>>> @@ -2220,7 +2220,6 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>> default: >>>>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "unsupported reg-io-width (%d)\n", >>>>>> prop); >>>>>> - ret = -EINVAL; >>>>> That looks odd, shouldn't you do something with this instead of ignoring >>>>> it??? >>>> >>>> How about this ？ >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>> b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>> index d9e4b67..9fbc611 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c >>>> @@ -2220,8 +2220,7 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_probe(struct platform_device >>>> *pdev) >>>> default: >>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "unsupported >>>> reg-io-width (%d)\n", >>>> prop); >>>> - ret = -EINVAL; >>>> - break; >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> >>> >>> You tell me, does the patch work for you? >>> >>> Is this really a "hard error" and did you now just break devices that >>> used to work properly? Are you correctly unwinding any previously >>> allocated state when you return here? >>> >>> Please do some research on this, and ideally, lots of testing, before >>> submitting it as a real solution. >> >> It's a patch coming from automated tool (e.g. Coverity), so I doubt >> there is any testing here. However the "return -EINVAL" looks correct here: >> 1. No particular unwinding is needed here, >> 2. It's an optional property (not used by existing DTS, only >> non-upstreamed by Samsung) thus treating it as hard-error is fine. >> Probably better to exit than convert it to some default value. > > So is that a "Reviwed-by:" or not? :) First, Tian Tao needs to send a v2 of that patch with a "return" instead of break. Then this will be a reviewed-by. :) Best regards, Krzysztof
