Re: [PATCH] of: Fix issue where code would fall through to error case.

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>]

On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>
>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@ettus.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>  
>>  		err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>  		if (err)
>> -			break;
>> +			goto err_out;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>>  err_out:
>>  	pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>  out:
> 
> Thanks for catching that.
> 
> Rob, please apply.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>
> 
> -Frank

On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
both the no-error path and the error path something like:


        out:
                of_node_put(tree_symbols);
                return err;

        err_out:
                pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
                goto out;
        }


I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.

-Frank