From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] stmmac: fix check for phydev being open Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1441809891.15399.18.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1441701786-10789-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com> <55EEC462.2000906@cogentembedded.com> <1441716387.21150.0.camel@synopsys.com> <55EF3CCF.4000608@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "peppe.cavallaro@st.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: "sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55EF3CCF.4000608@cogentembedded.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <3181C10F96C7F244B7969A1B34BA38A6@internal.synopsys.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Sergei, On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 22:53 +-0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: +AD4- Hello. +AD4- +AD4- On 09/08/2015 03:46 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote: +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Current check of phydev with IS+AF8-ERR(phydev) may make not much sense +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- because of+AF8-phy+AF8-connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Still for checking result of phy+AF8-connect() IS+AF8-ERR() makes perfect sense. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- So let's use combined check IS+AF8-ERR+AF8-OR+AF8-NULL() that covers both cases. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: Sergei Shtylyov +ADw-sergei.shtylyov+AEA-cogentembedded.com+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: Giuseppe Cavallaro +ADw-peppe.cavallaro+AEA-st.com+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: linux-kernel+AEA-vger.kernel.org +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: stable+AEA-vger.kernel.org +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: David Miller +ADw-davem+AEA-davemloft.net+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin +ADw-abrodkin+AEA-synopsys.com+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- --- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Changes compared to v2: +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +ACo- Updated commit message with mention of of+AF8-phy+AF8-connect() instead of +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- of+AF8-phy+AF8-attach(). +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +ACo- Return ENODEV in case of of+AF8-phy+AF8-connect() failure +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Changes compared to v1: +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +ACo- Use IS+AF8-ERR+AF8-OR+AF8-NULL() instead of discrete checks for null and err +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac+AF8-main.c +AHw- 7 +-+-+-+-+--- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+-), 2 deletions(-) +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac+AF8-main.c +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac+AF8-main.c +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- index 864b476..e2c9c86 100644 +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac+AF8-main.c +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +-+-+- b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac+AF8-main.c +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AEAAQA- -837,9 +-837,12 +AEAAQA- static int stmmac+AF8-init+AF8-phy(struct net+AF8-device +ACo-dev) +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- interface)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AH0- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - if (IS+AF8-ERR(phydev)) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +- if (IS+AF8-ERR+AF8-OR+AF8-NULL(phydev)) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- pr+AF8-err(+ACIAJQ-s: Could not attach to PHY+AFw-n+ACI-, dev-+AD4-name)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - return PTR+AF8-ERR(phydev)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +- if (+ACE-phydev) +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +- return -ENODEV+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +- else +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +- return PTR+AF8-ERR(phydev)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Don't need +ACo-else+ACo- after +ACo-return+ACo- and scripts/checkpatch.pl should have +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- complained about that. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-stmmac-fix-check-for-phydev-being-open.patch +AD4- +AD4- total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 14 lines checked +AD4- +AD4- Hm... I bet I saw such warning from checkpatch.pl recently (it was a false +AD4- positive though, so maybe the check was removed recently, not sure). Your +AD4- patch is clean indeed, however my comment is still valid. Ok, let me send another respin then. -Alexey