Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: use generic kernel error codes
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Tue May 04 2021 - 13:56:42 EST
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 05:45:37PM +0000, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> Sorry for the spam Greg I dropped the mailing lists from the first
> email. :(
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:07:48PM +0000, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> >> @@ -139,12 +139,11 @@ static u32 sdio_init(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
> >> psdio_data->tx_block_mode = 1;
> >> psdio_data->rx_block_mode = 1;
> >> + return err;
> >> +
> >> release:
> >> sdio_release_host(func);
> >> -
> >> - if (err)
> >> - return _FAIL;
> >> - return _SUCCESS;
> >> + return err;
> >> }
> >You just changed the logic here, are you SURE that was ok to do?
> I can't say my brain didn't bleed a little trying to keep this straight
> in my head while walking through this. (For what ever reason my brain
> sees negative integers as False) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Both the sdio_enable_func() and sdio_set_block_size() will return a
> negative integer if they fail, which we evaluate as True, allowing us to
> jump to release, free the card and propagate the error backwards.
> If everything worked, we'll skip all the jumps until we get to the first
> 'return err;' statement, returning our 0 for success.
> Inside sdio_dvobj_init() if we see 'anything below 0' (This probably
> should be changed to 'anything True') we jump to free_dvobj where we
> free the dvobj and return NULL
> If I've looked at this long enough I don't thing I changed the logic.
> Hopefully. :)
So you need to document this really well, showing that the function
whose error you changed, is being evaluated here now differently too.
> >> static void sdio_deinit(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
> >> @@ -186,7 +185,7 @@ static struct dvobj_priv *sdio_dvobj_init(struct sdio_func *func)
> >> psdio = &dvobj->intf_data;
> >> psdio->func = func;
> >> - if (sdio_init(dvobj) != _SUCCESS)
> >> + if (sdio_init(dvobj) < 0)
> >> goto free_dvobj;
> >> rtw_reset_continual_io_error(dvobj);
> >> base-commit: 9ccce092fc64d19504fa54de4fd659e279cc92e7
> >> --
> >> git-series 0.9.1
> >And that's all to remove the need for these crazy error values? If so,
> >why not also remove the #defines for them as well?
> I might have over sold this patch. :)
> There are quite a few functions like this still here that need to be
> converted before we can get rid of the _SUCCESS and _FAIL definitions.
> Would it be better if I bundled these up in a series?
Do it one function "call-chain" at a time, and yes, a series would be