Hi,
On 16.02.21 at 13:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 01:31:00AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>>
>> +static int tpm_add_tpm2_char_device(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>> +{
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + device_initialize(&chip->devs);
>> + chip->devs.parent = chip->dev.parent;
>> + chip->devs.class = tpmrm_class;
>> +
>> + rc = dev_set_name(&chip->devs, "tpmrm%d", chip->dev_num);
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto out_put_devs;
>> + /*
>> + * get extra reference on main device to hold on behalf of devs.
>> + * This holds the chip structure while cdevs is in use. The
>> + * corresponding put is in the tpm_devs_release.
>> + */
>> + get_device(&chip->dev);
>> + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
>> + chip->devs.devt =
>> + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
>> + cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops);
>> + chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> +
>> + rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + dev_err(&chip->devs,
>> + "unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
>> + dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt),
>> + MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc);
>> + goto out_put_devs;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +out_put_devs:
>> + put_device(&chip->devs);
>
> I'd rather you organize this so chip->devs.release and the get_device
> is always sent instead of having the possiblity for a put_device that
> doesn't call release
>
Agreed, I will change it. It should not make a difference in terms of correctness
but I see that it is less confusing if both error cases are handled similarly (plus its
only a minimal change).
Best regards,
Lino
