Re: [PATCH 1/2] extcon: extcon-gpio: Log error if work-queue init fails

[gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 04:52:12AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 09:49 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> > On 3/24/21 6:51 PM, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > > Hello Hans, Chanwoo, Greg,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 10:25 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On 3/24/21 10:21 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > > Add error print for probe failure when resource managed work-
> > > > > queue
> > > > > initialization fails.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <
> > > > > matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Suggested-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c | 4 +++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
> > > > > b/drivers/extcon/extcon-
> > > > > gpio.c
> > > > > index 4105df74f2b0..8ea2cda8f7f3 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
> > > > > @@ -114,8 +114,10 @@ static int gpio_extcon_probe(struct
> > > > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > > >  		return ret;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	ret = devm_delayed_work_autocancel(dev, &data->work,
> > > > > gpio_extcon_work);
> > > > > -	if (ret)
> > > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize
> > > > > delayed_work");
> > > > >  		return ret;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > 
> > > > The only ret which we can have here is -ENOMEM and as a rule we
> > > > don't
> > > > log
> > > > errors for those, because the kernel memory-management code
> > > > already
> > > > complains
> > > > loudly when this happens.
> > > 
> > > I know. This is why I originally omitted the print. Besides, if the
> > > memory is so low that devres adding fails - then we probably have
> > > plenty of other complaints as well... But as Chanwoo maintains the
> > > driver and wanted to have the print - I do not have objections to
> > > that
> > > either. Maybe someone some-day adds another error path to wq
> > > initialization in which case seeing it failed could make sense.
> > > 
> > > > So IMHO this patch should be dropped.
> > > Fine for me - as well as keeping it. I have no strong opinion on
> > > this.
> > 
> > If it is the same handling way for -ENOMEM, don't need to add log ss
> > Hans said. 
> > Thanks for Hans.
> 
> So be it :)
> Greg, can you just apply the patch 2/2 and drop this one? (There should
> be no dependency between these) or do you want me to resend 2/2 alone?

I'll just take the 2/2 patch, thanks.

greg k-h