From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5499E299.2080305@metafoo.de> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:46:01 +0100 From: Lars-Peter Clausen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hartmut Knaack CC: Daniel Baluta , Roberta Dobrescu , Jonathan Cameron , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "octavian.purdila@intel.com" , Michael.Hennerich@analog.com, Peter Meerwald Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iio: frequency: Remove 'out of memory' message References: <1418721107-5429-1-git-send-email-roberta.dobrescu@gmail.com> <1418721107-5429-2-git-send-email-roberta.dobrescu@gmail.com> <549930D1.9050600@metafoo.de> <5499CEB0.5020508@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <5499CEB0.5020508@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed List-ID: On 12/23/2014 09:21 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote: > Lars-Peter Clausen schrieb am 23.12.2014 um 10:07: >> On 12/23/2014 09:51 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Roberta Dobrescu >>> wrote: >>>> This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl warning: >>>> WARNING: Possible unnecessary 'out of memory' message >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Roberta Dobrescu >>>> --- >>>> drivers/iio/frequency/adf4350.c | 4 +--- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4350.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4350.c >>>> index 63a25d9..2b301eb 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4350.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4350.c >>>> @@ -387,10 +387,8 @@ static struct adf4350_platform_data *adf4350_parse_dt(struct device *dev) >>>> int ret; >>>> >>>> pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL); >>>> - if (!pdata) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "could not allocate memory for platform data\n"); >>>> + if (!pdata) >>>> return NULL; >>>> - } >>>> >>> Based on Harmut's review we can return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) here >>> and then use IS_ERR and PTR_ERR inside adf4350_probe() >> >> This patch is fine as it is. It removes the redundant error message. Every >> thing else should be done in a second patch. > > I can't follow on this one. From what I see, if memory allocation fails here, > we will get an appropriate error message here, and _probe will pass up -EINVAL, > causing a misleading error message. Where do you see redundancy? Unless you pass __GFP_NOWARN to k*alloc it will print a error message on its own if the allocation fails. - Lars