Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] platform/x86: int3472: Add get_sensor_adev_and_name() helper

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 11/1/21 11:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:31 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/25/21 13:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> +int skl_int3472_get_sensor_adev_and_name(struct device *dev,
>>>> +                                        struct acpi_device **sensor_adev_ret,
>>>> +                                        const char **name_ret)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
>>>> +       struct acpi_device *sensor;
>>>> +       int ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +       sensor = acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_dev(adev);
>>>> +       if (!sensor) {
>>>> +               dev_err(dev, "INT3472 seems to have no dependents.\n");
>>>> +               return -ENODEV;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       *name_ret = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT,
>>>> +                                  acpi_dev_name(sensor));
>>>> +       if (!*name_ret)
>>>> +               ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (ret == 0 && sensor_adev_ret)
>>>> +               *sensor_adev_ret = sensor;
>>>> +       else
>>>> +               acpi_dev_put(sensor);
>>>> +
>>>> +       return ret;
>>>
>>> The error path is twisted a bit including far staying ret=0 assignment.
>>>
>>> Can it be
>>>
>>>        int ret;
>>>        ...
>>>        *name_ret = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT,
>>>                                   acpi_dev_name(sensor));
>>>        if (!*name_ret) {
>>>                acpi_dev_put(sensor);
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>>        }
>>>
>>>        if (sensor_adev_ret)
>>>                *sensor_adev_ret = sensor;
>>>
>>>        return 0;
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> That misses an acpi_dev_put(sensor) when sensor_adev_ret == NULL.
> 
> else
>   acpi_dev_put(...);

Then we have 2 acpi_dev_put() paths, IMHO the original code
which clearly states that we keep the ref:

if (success && returning-the-ref)

and put the ref in all other cases is better then having
2 separate put paths.

Regards,

Hans