Re: [PATCH 2/2] char: pcmcia: cm4040_cs: Fix failure handling Handled failure cases of device_create()

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:00:29AM +0530, nizamhaider786@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Nijam Haider <nizamhaider786@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nijam Haider <nizamhaider786@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/char/pcmcia/cm4040_cs.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/cm4040_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/cm4040_cs.c
> index d5e4360..30bb977 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/cm4040_cs.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/cm4040_cs.c
> @@ -558,6 +558,7 @@ static void reader_release(struct pcmcia_device *link)
>  static int reader_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
>  {
>  	struct reader_dev *dev;
> +	struct device *dev_ret;
>  	int i, ret;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < CM_MAX_DEV; i++) {
> @@ -593,8 +594,15 @@ static int reader_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	device_create(cmx_class, NULL, MKDEV(major, i), NULL, "cmx%d", i);
> -
> +	dev_ret = device_create(cmx_class, NULL, MKDEV(major, i), NULL, "cmx%d", i);
> +        if (IS_ERR(dev_ret)) {
> +                printk(KERN_ERR "device_create failed for %d\n",
> +                               i);
> +                reader_release(link);
> +                dev_table[i] = NULL;
> +                kfree(dev);
> +                return -ENODEV;
> +        }
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot