From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.17.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xRZ8409cPzDr14 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 22:53:23 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Re: block/ps3vram: Check return of ps3vram_cache_init To: Geoff Levand , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jens Axboe , Jim Paris , Michael Ellerman References: From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <5df6ae90-8b7d-8418-b2ee-15dbebfa3e95@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:46:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > @@ -741,7 +741,11 @@ static int ps3vram_probe(struct ps3_system_bus_device *dev) > goto out_unmap_reports; > } > > - ps3vram_cache_init(dev); > + error = ps3vram_cache_init(dev); > + if (error < 0) { > + goto out_unmap_reports; > + } > + > ps3vram_proc_init(dev); > > queue = blk_alloc_queue(GFP_KERNEL); I pointed a few development concerns out. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798575/ Will the commit subject “block/ps3vram: Check return value of ps3vram_cache_init()” be more appropriate? Regards, Markus