Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/qcom: Fix error propagation in msm_timer_init()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:25:36 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote:
> msm_timer_init() reuses the res variable for the clocksource_register_hz()
> return value in its common exit path. When request_percpu_irq() or
> cpuhp_setup_state() fails, res holds a negative error code, but it is
> unconditionally overwritten by clocksource_register_hz() before the
> function returns. As a successful clocksource registration returns 0, the
> failure is reported as success: the percpu IRQ is not registered (or the
> hotplug state is not installed) and yet msm_dt_timer_init() believes the
> timer is usable. The same happens when alloc_percpu() fails, which also
> leaves msm_evt NULL for the hotplug callbacks to dereference.
> 
> Return -ENOMEM when alloc_percpu() fails and bail out through a dedicated
> error path that frees msm_evt and returns the original error code instead
> of falling through to the clocksource registration.
> 
> Fixes: ab51189ca485 ("clocksource/drivers/qcom: Convert init function to return error")
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
> Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang <vulab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/clocksource/timer-qcom.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback.

2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I actually doubt we speak
   with actual person.

3. Finally, same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do
if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof