From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB8774A5EB9; Sat, 10 Oct 2026 14:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791643331; cv=none; b=nYrT2QEbn6Ez2cwEw7ozeFaTGSgrjSu93n7s6FfsKGDzbIJ/IJiD6BysJGWOVAfgV0AZIgjxzSsqgfiDfClK7VwZDJDIO9dZSkNmMQHMjrmeyuWKD8gpKtfLLWMktbEcuQuoXeFYXNZr6LRWBUm4B+DMokR8UqRRydu5KHRU9aQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791643331; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IWQi5VBZiT8JwkZD4YTgP5QY2avI2t6peCKXLR9ukrE=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=iMhGM1VBVidz21Kq4Yr2LPkgg/cAIf26FMjGzfnwXGjWmlsBNsIZyt3J7NWnpNpIXSgQ8qB8Pwnh5MzaIJWlOb44tGSgb9GqLdVX6Ykmu+ld/qAddbx02uxwYLZ4IIApwrtqOk17tUaZ4YcD3zbkHjZ3/KE0PpI5NZJb+JRFTfE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LbcK5/hS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="LbcK5/hS" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0299A1F000FF; Sat, 10 Oct 2026 14:42:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791643330; bh=wMw9ugio+8c42asEwVrgY6p0HxvV0o7SRz0rhFG3wgY=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=LbcK5/hSiF0RWeDyfL9mdElK1DOB7hYPyTNpXqhAQ4U207L2CrXZBtUFrxcounB77 pUwabB2PRANs5/pteHRmXqEYEJJ9C7MnFwjItkJKUnnk3m8a7zxEWGDzB5MphAQ2AQ md21ecbkUYvsDmeTn8HxKM80PvzoGwdY4FDXUQLGnX3Svh8P9J8QF5tzqhx+6v0Yfg f72H+2ffaUgeIOCvogh5zZ724LnqNG4WCvDxpWpKMdpArHPWxV7W0BBd6PSY6HzOAd bc11It1ntx/1SBWIG5j/IiV3IQ6CaXQXJokqvw9BJTjpq/Yf755ILg4al5fSpTWUC1 c3qLLO41oxotA== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 09/13] net: mana: do not bail out of mana_detach on dealloc failure Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Wei Hu" Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <8c515f9f2d4b6db7a29d69ebb53fe18c6c751caf.1790795005.git.weh@linux.microsoft.com> References: <8c515f9f2d4b6db7a29d69ebb53fe18c6c751caf.1790795005.git.weh@linux.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2026 14:42:09 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] mana_detach() unconditionally returns 0 making caller error checks = dead code -- commit 69defa182668486dbe34c62749b906b0d4dc31b1 Author: Dipayaan Roy net: mana: do not bail out of mana_detach on dealloc failure This commit removes the early error return from mana_detach() when mana_dealloc_queues() fails, ensuring that device and port-context cleanup continues. > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/mana_en.c b/drivers/net/= ethernet/microsoft/mana/mana_en.c > index 51f9bfc64c6b3..9297ce15efceb 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/mana_en.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/mana_en.c > @@ -4537,10 +4537,8 @@ int mana_detach(struct net_device *ndev, bool from= _close) > =20 > if (apc->port_st_save) { > err =3D mana_dealloc_queues(ndev); > - if (err) { > + if (err) > netdev_err(ndev, "%s failed to deallocate queues: %d\n", __func__, er= r); > - return err; > - } [Severity: Low] Because mana_detach() now unconditionally returns 0, the error checks in ca= llers have become dead code. For example, in mana_per_port_queue_reset_work_handl= er(): err =3D mana_detach(ndev, false); if (err) { netdev_err(ndev, "mana_detach failed: %d\n", err); goto dealloc_pre_rxbufs; } Would it make sense to update mana_detach() to return void and remove the unreachable error handling paths in its callers? > } > =20 > if (!from_close) { --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1790795005.gi= t.weh@linux.microsoft.com?part=3D9