| Message ID | 4afa457713874729eb61eec533a4674a51d1d242.1739985599.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | leds: st1202: Fix an error handling path in st1202_probe() | expand |
Le 20/02/2025 à 16:58, Lee Jones a écrit : > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > >> devm_mutex_init() may return -ENOMEM. >> So this error should be handled in st1202_probe(). > > The start of a new sentence shouldn't warrant a line break. > >> Fixes: 259230378c65 ("leds: Add LED1202 I2C driver") >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> --- >> drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c >> index b691c4886993..4fc17d518292 100644 >> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c >> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c >> @@ -356,7 +356,10 @@ static int st1202_probe(struct i2c_client *client) >> if (!chip) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); >> + ret = devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); >> + if (ret < 0) > > My assumption is that anything but 0 would be bad, thus: > > if (ret) Matter of taste. All other tests in this driver are "if (ret < 0)" or "if (ret != 0)". What do you prefer: consistency or concision? (my own choice goes to consistency) If you confirm concision, I'll send a v2 that also fix your other comment above. CJ > >> + return ret; >> + >> chip->client = client; >> >> ret = st1202_dt_init(chip); >> -- >> 2.48.1 >> >
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 20/02/2025 à 16:58, Lee Jones a écrit : > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > > > > devm_mutex_init() may return -ENOMEM. > > > So this error should be handled in st1202_probe(). > > > > The start of a new sentence shouldn't warrant a line break. > > > > > Fixes: 259230378c65 ("leds: Add LED1202 I2C driver") > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > > > --- > > > drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c | 5 ++++- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c > > > index b691c4886993..4fc17d518292 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c > > > @@ -356,7 +356,10 @@ static int st1202_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > > if (!chip) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > - devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); > > > + ret = devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > My assumption is that anything but 0 would be bad, thus: > > > > if (ret) > > Matter of taste. All other tests in this driver are "if (ret < 0)" or "if > (ret != 0)". > > What do you prefer: consistency or concision? (my own choice goes to > consistency) > > If you confirm concision, I'll send a v2 that also fix your other comment > above. Ah, I just attempted to apply the patch, but it looks like it's already fixed in ("leds: st1202: Check for error code from devm_mutex_init() call").
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c index b691c4886993..4fc17d518292 100644 --- a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c @@ -356,7 +356,10 @@ static int st1202_probe(struct i2c_client *client) if (!chip) return -ENOMEM; - devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); + ret = devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; + chip->client = client; ret = st1202_dt_init(chip);
devm_mutex_init() may return -ENOMEM. So this error should be handled in st1202_probe(). Fixes: 259230378c65 ("leds: Add LED1202 I2C driver") Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> --- drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)