Re: [PATCH] pata_at91: fix ata_host_activate() failure handling

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 03/31/2014 09:51 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

> Add missing clk_put() call to ata_host_activate() failure path.

> Cc: Andrew Victor <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/ata/pata_at91.c |   11 ++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

> Index: b/drivers/ata/pata_at91.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_at91.c	2014-03-14 16:45:04.196724381 +0100
> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_at91.c	2014-03-31 17:46:40.127677782 +0200
> @@ -407,12 +407,13 @@ static int pata_at91_probe(struct platfo
>
>   	host->private_data = info;
>
> -	return ata_host_activate(host, gpio_is_valid(irq) ? gpio_to_irq(irq) : 0,
> -			gpio_is_valid(irq) ? ata_sff_interrupt : NULL,
> -			irq_flags, &pata_at91_sht);
> +	ret = ata_host_activate(host, gpio_is_valid(irq) ? gpio_to_irq(irq) : 0,
> +				gpio_is_valid(irq) ? ata_sff_interrupt : NULL,
> +				irq_flags, &pata_at91_sht);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_put;
>
> -	if (!ret)
> -		return 0;
> +	return 0;

   Hm, I have once fixed that (see that *if* (!ret)) but looks like a later 
commit 477c87e90853d136b188c50c0e4a93d01cad872e (ARM: at91/pata: use 
gpio_is_valid to check the gpio) broke it again. :-( Would be good if the 
changelog did mention that...

MBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/