From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:12:34 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: common: check for failure Message-ID: <20151203084234.GA5724@sudip-pc> References: <1448960770-10815-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20151203073917.GE14699@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20151203073917.GE14699@codeaurora.org> List-ID: On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:39:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 12/01, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > We were not checking the return from devm_add_action() which can fail. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > --- > > drivers/clk/qcom/common.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > > index c112eba..3541a9a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/common.c > > @@ -213,7 +213,10 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, pdev->dev.of_node); > > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_del_clk_provider, > > + pdev->dev.of_node); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > So now we don't remove the clk provider on allocation failure? > Confused. > > > > > reset = &cc->reset; > > reset->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node; > > @@ -236,8 +239,12 @@ int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > > return ret; > > } > > > > - devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev); > > - > > + ret = devm_add_action(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev); > > + if (ret) { > > + if (desc->gdscs && desc->num_gdscs) > > + gdsc_unregister(dev); > > + return ret; > > + } > > > > return 0; > > } > > You seem to have missed the reset devm action. Why? I have messed up pretty bad in this patch. :( > > Also, I wonder if we could have devm_add_action() or some other > new devm_add_action() wrapper that tried to add the action, and > if it failed it ran the action right there and returned the > -ENOMEM? So then we can just have: > > ret = devm_add_action_or_do_it(dev, qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister, dev) > if (ret) > return ret; > > and we're assured that on the failure path we'll have already > called qcom_cc_gdsc_unregister. I am on it, will send you a patch for this. regards sudip