Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd/uncore: fix error codes in amd_uncore_init()

[Sandipan Das]

On 10/13/2023 2:33 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/13/2023 12:48 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> Some of the error paths in this function return don't initialize the
>>> error code.  Return -ENODEV.
>>>
>>> Fixes: d6389d3ccc13 ("perf/x86/amd/uncore: Refactor uncore management")
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c | 3 ++-
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>>> index 9b444ce24108..a389828f378c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,8 @@ static struct amd_uncore uncores[UNCORE_TYPE_MAX] = {
>>>  static int __init amd_uncore_init(void)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct amd_uncore *uncore;
>>> -	int ret, i;
>>> +	int ret = -ENODEV;
>>> +	int i;
>>>  
>>>  	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
>>>  	    boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
>>
>>
>> Thanks for catching this. I see that 'ret' remains uninitialized for cases
>> where the hotplug callback registration fails and was thinking if the
>> following is a better fix for this as the reason might not be ENODEV.
> 
> Yeah, passing through the real error codes is usually better.
> 
> Here's it's probably a bit academic, as I don't think we are even using the 
> init return code in the init sequence iterator, see how the return code by 
> do_one_initcall() gets ignored by do_initcall_level() & do_pre_smp_initcalls() ...
> 
> Nevertheless, mind submitting this as a separate patch?
> 

Sure. Will do.