| Message ID | 20220301075351.31691-1-linmq006@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: fsl: Fix error handling in pcm030_fabric_probe | expand |
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 07:53:48AM +0000, Miaoqian Lin wrote: > This will call twice platform_device_put() > if both platform_device_add() and snd_soc_register_card() fails. > Fix it by using goto label to avoid duplicating the error code logic. This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 02:18:52AM +0000, Miaoqian Lin wrote: > This will call twice platform_device_put() > if both platform_device_add() and snd_soc_register_card() fails. > return early on error to avoid duplicating the error code logic. > > Signed-off-by: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com> > --- > changes in v2: > - use return statement to return early when fails > - rebase on top of commit 559089e0a93d ("vmalloc: replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP") Why rebase on top of that seemingly random commit? Is there some sort of dependency here?
On 2022/4/20 21:00, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 02:18:52AM +0000, Miaoqian Lin wrote: >> This will call twice platform_device_put() >> if both platform_device_add() and snd_soc_register_card() fails. >> return early on error to avoid duplicating the error code logic. >> >> Signed-off-by: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com> >> --- >> changes in v2: >> - use return statement to return early when fails >> - rebase on top of commit 559089e0a93d ("vmalloc: replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP") > Why rebase on top of that seemingly random commit? Is there some sort > of dependency here? Hi, it the head of master in when I made this patch. It's because you pointed out that patch v1 doesn't apply against current code. But I am not sure what's the problem. So I ensure the codebase is up-to-date. If this patch have no conflict, you can ignore it.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 09:35:55PM +0800, Miaoqian Lin wrote: > On 2022/4/20 21:00, Mark Brown wrote: > >> - rebase on top of commit 559089e0a93d ("vmalloc: replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP") > > Why rebase on top of that seemingly random commit? Is there some sort > > of dependency here? > Hi, it the head of master in when I made this patch. It's because you pointed out > that patch v1 doesn't apply against current code. But I am not sure what's the problem. > So I ensure the codebase is up-to-date. If this patch have no conflict, you can ignore it. Current code here is my git tree (-next is often a fair approximation) - if people have been making changes since the merge window then often code written against mainline won't apply and things need to be based on people's current work. You're looking for https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next
On 2022/4/20 21:41, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 09:35:55PM +0800, Miaoqian Lin wrote: >> On 2022/4/20 21:00, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> - rebase on top of commit 559089e0a93d ("vmalloc: replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP") >>> Why rebase on top of that seemingly random commit? Is there some sort >>> of dependency here? >> Hi, it the head of master in when I made this patch. It's because you pointed out >> that patch v1 doesn't apply against current code. But I am not sure what's the problem. >> So I ensure the codebase is up-to-date. If this patch have no conflict, you can ignore it. > Current code here is my git tree (-next is often a fair approximation) - > if people have been making changes since the merge window then often > code written against mainline won't apply and things need to be based on > people's current work. You're looking for > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next I get it, thanks for your kindly reminder.
diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/pcm030-audio-fabric.c b/sound/soc/fsl/pcm030-audio-fabric.c index 83b4a22bf15a..d397bb97f37b 100644 --- a/sound/soc/fsl/pcm030-audio-fabric.c +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/pcm030-audio-fabric.c @@ -95,19 +95,23 @@ static int pcm030_fabric_probe(struct platform_device *op) ret = platform_device_add(pdata->codec_device); if (ret) { dev_err(&op->dev, "platform_device_add() failed: %d\n", ret); - platform_device_put(pdata->codec_device); + goto err_add; } ret = snd_soc_register_card(card); if (ret) { dev_err(&op->dev, "snd_soc_register_card() failed: %d\n", ret); - platform_device_del(pdata->codec_device); - platform_device_put(pdata->codec_device); + goto err_register; } platform_set_drvdata(op, pdata); return ret; +err_register: + platform_device_del(pdata->codec_device); +err_add: + platform_device_put(pdata->codec_device); + return ret; } static int pcm030_fabric_remove(struct platform_device *op)
This will call twice platform_device_put() if both platform_device_add() and snd_soc_register_card() fails. Fix it by using goto label to avoid duplicating the error code logic. Fixes: fb25621da570 ("ASoC: fsl: Add missing error handling in pcm030_fabric_probe") Signed-off-by: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com> --- sound/soc/fsl/pcm030-audio-fabric.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)