Re: [PATCH -next] ath11k: Add checked value for ath11k_ahb_remove

[Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@codeaurora.org>]

On 2020-09-21 06:27, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes:
> 
>> + rajkumar
>> 
>> Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Return value form wait_for_completion_timeout should to be checked.
>>> 
>>> This is detected by Coverity,#CID:1464479 (CHECKED_RETURN)
>>> 
>>> FIXES: d5c65159f2895(ath11k: driver for Qualcomm IEEE 802.11ax 
>>> devices)
>> 
>> This should be
>> 
>> Fixes: d5c65159f289 ("ath11k: driver for Qualcomm IEEE 802.11ax 
>> devices")
>> 
>> But I can fix that.
>> 
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ahb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ahb.c
>>> @@ -981,12 +981,16 @@ static int ath11k_ahb_probe(struct 
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> static int ath11k_ahb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> 	struct ath11k_base *ab = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> -
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> 	reinit_completion(&ab->driver_recovery);
>>> 
>>> 	if (test_bit(ATH11K_FLAG_RECOVERY, &ab->dev_flags))
>>> -		wait_for_completion_timeout(&ab->driver_recovery,
>>> -					    ATH11K_AHB_RECOVERY_TIMEOUT);
>>> +		if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&ab->driver_recovery,
>>> +						 ATH11K_AHB_RECOVERY_TIMEOUT)) {
>>> + ath11k_warn(ab, "fail to receive recovery response
>>> completion.\n");
> 

>>> +			ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +		}
>> 
>> This is a good find. Rajkumar, can you take a look if this is ok?
> 
Sorry for the delay. wait_for_completion status check LGTM. But return 0 
is
intentional as it is required to complete platform deinit properly. 
Better
to improve the logging message.

>>> 
>>> 	set_bit(ATH11K_FLAG_UNREGISTERING, &ab->dev_flags);
>>> 	cancel_work_sync(&ab->restart_work);
>>> @@ -999,7 +1003,7 @@ static int ath11k_ahb_remove(struct 
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> 	ath11k_core_free(ab);
>>> 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
>>> 
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return ret;
>>> }
>> 
>> Especially I wonder what happens if ath11k_ahb_remove() returns an
>> error. Should we just print a warning and return 0 instead?
> 
> I changed this patch so that we return 0 even if timeout happens, just
> to be on the safe side. The patch is now in the pending branch.
> 

Thanks for taking care of this.

Rajkumar