On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:03:34PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On 13/06/2022 22:57, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Le 13/06/2022 à 22:02, Christian Lamparter a écrit :
> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:12 PM Christophe JAILLET
> > > <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If an error occurs after a successful call to p54spi_request_firmware(), it
> > > > must be undone by a corresponding release_firmware() as already done in
> > > > the error handling path of p54spi_request_firmware() and in the .remove()
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > Add the missing call in the error handling path and remove it from
> > > > p54spi_request_firmware() now that it is the responsibility of the caller
> > > > to release the firmawre
> > >
> > > that last word hast a typo: firmware. (maybe Kalle can fix this in post).
> >
> > More or less the same typo twice in a row... _Embarrassed_
> >
> > >
> > > > Fixes: cd8d3d321285 ("p54spi: p54spi driver")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > (Though, v1 was fine too.)
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: reduce diffstat and take advantage on the fact that release_firmware()
> > > > checks for NULL
> > >
> > > Heh, ok ;) . Now that I see it, the "ret = p54_parse_firmware(...); ... "
> > > could have been replaced with "return p54_parse_firmware(dev, priv->firmware);"
> > > so the p54spi.c could shrink another 5-6 lines.
> > >
> > > I think leaving p54spi_request_firmware() callee to deal with
> > > releasing the firmware
> > > in the error case as well is nicer because it gets rid of a "but in
> > > this case" complexity.
> >
> >
> > Take the one you consider being the best one.
>
> well said!
>
> >
> > If it deserves a v3 to axe some lines of code, I can do it but, as said
> > previously,
> > v1 is for me the cleaner and more future proof.
>
> Gee, that last sentence about "future proof" is daring.
The future is vast and unknowable but one thing which is pretty likely
is that Christophe's patch will introduce a static checker warning. We
really would have expected a to find a release_firmware() in the place
where it was in the original code. There is a comment there now so no
one is going to re-add the release_firmware() but that's been an issue
in the past.
I'm sort of surprised that it wasn't a static checker warning already.
Anyway, I'll add this to Smatch check_unwind.c
+ { "request_firmware", ALLOC, 0, "*$", &int_zero, &int_zero},
+ { "release_firmware", RELEASE, 0, "$"},
regards,
dan carpenter
