Re: [PATCH] of: Fix issue where code would fall through to error case.
From: Moritz Fischer
Date: Thu Nov 17 2016 - 19:10:56 EST
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>> if (err)
>>> - break;
>>> + goto err_out;
>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>> + return 0;
>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>> Thanks for catching that.
>> Rob, please apply.
>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
> return err;
> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
> goto out;
> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
I can submit a v2 doing that instead.