Re: [PATCH 6/7] drivers: net: cpsw: fix error return code

[Julia Lawall]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> > > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> > > > > index 3409e80..6a76992 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> > > > > @@ -2448,8 +2448,10 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device
> > > > > *pdev)
> > > > > 
> > > > >        /* RX IRQ */
> > > > >        irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
> > > > > -    if (irq < 0)
> > > > > +    if (irq < 0) {
> > > > > +        ret = -ENOENT;
> > > > 
> > > >     Why not just propagate an error returned by that function?
> > > 
> > > OK, I did what was done a few lines before in the same function:
> > > 
> > >          ndev->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
> > >          if (ndev->irq < 0) {
> > >         dev_err(priv->dev, "error getting irq resource\n");
> > >                  ret = -ENOENT;
> > >                  goto clean_ale_ret;
> > >          }
> > > 
> > > Maybe they should all be changed?
> > 
> >     Yeah, I'd vote for it. I'm seeing no sense in overriding an actual
> > error.
> 
>    Hm, I decided to check drivers/base/dd.c and I think I maybe know the
> reason now: -ENXIO, usually returned by platform_get_irq(), is silently
> "swallowed" by really_probe(); to be precise, -ENODEV and -ENXIO are only
> reported with pr_debug(), while -ENOENT causes printk(KERN_WARNING, ...)...

Sorry, I'm confused...  What should it be?  v1 or v2?  Here are the counts 
of the different constants returned on failure of platform_get_irq:

ENODEV: 84
ENXIO: 67
EINVAL: 61
ENOENT: 29
EBUSY: 11
EIO: 2
EPROBE_DEFER: 1

julia
--
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/