Re: [PATCH net] net: wwan: iosm: Fix error handling path in ipc_pcie_probe()

[Harshit Mogalapalli]

Hi Simon,

On 08/04/23 9:02 pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 11:56:07PM -0700, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> > Smatch reports:
> > 	drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c:298 ipc_pcie_probe()
> > 	warn: missing unwind goto?
> >
> > When dma_set_mask fails it directly returns without disabling pci
> > device and freeing ipc_pcie. Fix this my calling a correct goto label
> >
> > As dma_set_mask returns either 0 or -EIO, we can use a goto label, as
> > it finally returns -EIO.
> >
> > Renamed the goto label as name of the label before this patch is not
> > relevant after this patch.
>
> nit: I agree that it's nice to name the labels after what they unwind,
> rather than where they are called from. But now both schemes
> are used in this function.

Thanks a lot for the review.
I agree that the naming of the label is inconsistent, should we do 
something like below?

diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c 
b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
index 5bf5a93937c9..04517bd3325a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static int ipc_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pci,
        ret = dma_set_mask(ipc_pcie->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
        if (ret) {
                dev_err(ipc_pcie->dev, "Could not set PCI DMA mask: 
%d", ret);
-               return ret;
+               goto set_mask_fail;
        }

        ipc_pcie_config_aspm(ipc_pcie);
@@ -323,6 +323,7 @@ static int ipc_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pci,
 imem_init_fail:
        ipc_pcie_resources_release(ipc_pcie);
 resources_req_fail:
+set_mask_fail:
        pci_disable_device(pci);
 pci_enable_fail:
        kfree(ipc_pcie);



-- but resources_req_fail: has nothing in its block particularly.

Thanks,
Harshit

> > Fixes: 035e3befc191 ("net: wwan: iosm: fix driver not working with INTEL_IOMMU disabled")
> > Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > This is based on static analysis, only compile tested.
>
> I agree with your analysis.
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>