Re: [PATCH 55/69] ASoC: rt5645: add error checking to rt5645_probe function

Phillip Potter
2021-05-25T22:02:27Z

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:38:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 01:57:22PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
> >
> > Check for return value from various snd_soc_dapm_* calls, as many of
> > them can return errors and this should be handled. Also, reintroduce
> > the allocation failure check for rt5645->eq_param as well. Make all
>
> Phillip, please follow the standard patch submission process,
> this is documented in submitting-paches.rst in the kernel tree.
> In particular please make sure that you copy the relevant
> maintainers and mailing lists for the subsystem and any driver
> specific maintainers on any patches that you are submitting to
> the kernel so that they can be reviewed.
>

Dear Mark,

This patch was submitted to a closed mentoring group as part of the
University of Minnesota reversion/checking process. I was not
responsible for the final send out to the public mailing lists etc. as
the patches were collated first and sent out together en masse.

> > +exit:
> > + /*
> > + * If there was an error above, everything will be cleaned up by the
> > + * caller if we return an error here. This will be done with a later
> > + * call to rt5645_remove().
> > + */
> > + return ret;
>
> This comment is not accurate, rt5645_remove() just resets the
> hardware - it's not going to clean up anything to do with any of
> the branches to error you've got above. The core *will* clean up
> any routes and widgets that are added, but it doesn't do it by
> calling remove() and people shouldn't add code in their remove
> functions which does so.

My comment was adjusted after submission for brevity's sake. This was
what I originally wrote:
/*
* All of the above is cleaned up when we return an error here, as
* the caller will notice the error and invoke rt5645_remove and
* other cleanup routines, as it does for the snd_soc_dapm_* calls
* above as well.
*/
Happy to resubmit/rewrite as needed? Based on what you've written
though it may be better to drop the patch?

>
> Also I'm guessing this was done purely through inspection rather
> than the code having been tested? If there was a problem seen at
> runtime this isn't fixing it, TBH I'm more than a little dubious
> about applying this untested - it's really random if things check
> these errors since they're basically static checks that we're not
> smart enough to do at compile time and the core is pretty loud
> when they hit. I occasionally wonder about just removing the
> return codes, I think more callers don't have the checks than do
> (certainly in the case of _force_enable() where I was surprised
> to find any callers that do), but never got round to it.

Yes, that's correct - I did not test this directly other than making
sure it builds, as I don't have this hardware to test with.

Regards,
Phil