Re: [PATCH] x86: thinkpad_acpi: Handle return error.

[Darren Hart]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:45:50AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch is for handling a return error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> > index 1d18b32..19ad3ec 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> > @@ -1237,9 +1237,11 @@ static int tpacpi_rfk_hook_set_block(void *data, bool blocked)
> >         /* try to set radio state */
> 
> >         res = (tp_rfk->ops->set_status)(blocked ?
> >                                 TPACPI_RFK_RADIO_OFF : TPACPI_RFK_RADIO_ON);
> 
> Just in case: first parens are redundant here.
> 
> > +       if (res < 0)
> > +               return res;
> 
> So, this changes behaviour. Before we call _rfk_update_swstate()
> independently on error code.
> 
> Care to explain in commit message how this change does / does not
> affect overall user experience?

Arvind has made a number of similar such changes throughout the tree, I presume
with some automation. In this case, since there is no indication of a particular
manifestation of this bug on hardware, I will presume the same approach was
taken here. I'm dropping this patch as "changes requested" because at the very
least this needs a commit log which documents the problem manifested and why the
behavioral change is appropriate.

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center