On martedì 22 marzo 2022 09:38:58 CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> debugfs_create_dir() returns a pointers to a dentry objects. On failures
> it returns errors. Currently the values returned to visornic_probe()
> seem to be tested for being equal to NULL in case of failures.
>
> Properly test with "if (IS_ERR())" and then assign the correct error
> value to the "err" variable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c
> index 643432458105..58d03f3d3173 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c
> @@ -1922,11 +1922,11 @@ static int visornic_probe(struct visor_device *dev)
> /* create debug/sysfs directories */
> devdata->eth_debugfs_dir = debugfs_create_dir(netdev->name,
> visornic_debugfs_dir);
> - if (!devdata->eth_debugfs_dir) {
> + if (IS_ERR(devdata->eth_debugfs_dir)) {
> dev_err(&dev->device,
> "%s debugfs_create_dir %s failed\n",
> __func__, netdev->name);
> - err = -ENOMEM;
> + err = PTR_ERR(devdata->eth_debugfs_dir);
> goto cleanup_register_netdev;
> }
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Hi Greg, Dan,
Now I have time to rework this patch but, if I'm not misunderstanding, you
asked for two contrasting works to do here...
Dan wrote that "[in] this case you can delete the whole devdata->eth_debugfs_dir
and the related code.".
Greg wrote that "We really shouldn't be checking this value at all. There's
no reason to check the return value of a debugfs_* call. Can you fix up the code to
do that instead?".
I'm confused because they look like two incompatible requests. What should I do?
Thanks,
Fabio M. De Francesco
