[PATCH RESEND] ARM: pxa: fix error handling in pxa2xx_drv_pcmcia_probe
Eric Miao
eric.y.miao at gmail.com
Tue Dec 27 04:25:38 EST 2011
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Haojian Zhuang <hzhuang1 at marvell.com> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Eric Miao [eric.y.miao at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:11 PM
> To: Axel Lin
> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Haojian Zhuang; Russell King; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-pcmcia at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: pxa: fix error handling in pxa2xx_drv_pcmcia_probe
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Axel Lin <axel.lin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If pxa2xx_drv_pcmcia_add_one fails, it will go to err1 error path.
>> Add a missing clk_put in the error path.
>>
>> Checking the ret value after the for loop is redundant, it is always false.
>> Thus remove the redundant checking.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin at gmail.com>
>
> Acked-by: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao at gmail.com>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_base.c | 12 +++---------
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_base.c b/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_base.c
>> index a87e272..64d433e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_base.c
>> @@ -328,21 +328,15 @@ static int pxa2xx_drv_pcmcia_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>> goto err1;
>> }
>>
>> - if (ret) {
>> - while (--i >= 0)
>> - soc_pcmcia_remove_one(&sinfo->skt[i]);
>> - kfree(sinfo);
>> - clk_put(clk);
>> - } else {
>> - pxa2xx_configure_sockets(&dev->dev);
>> - dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, sinfo);
>> - }
>> + pxa2xx_configure_sockets(&dev->dev);
>> + dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, sinfo);
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>> err1:
>> while (--i >= 0)
>> soc_pcmcia_remove_one(&sinfo->skt[i]);
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> kfree(sinfo);
>> err0:
>> return ret;
>> --
>> 1.7.5.4
>>
>>
>>
> Wait a minute.
>
> The original code will check whether pxa2xx_drv_pcmcia_add_one() successful. If it fails, we'll remove all devices that we registered.
>
> But Axel removed these code. Why?
If it fails, it will jump to err1 anyway. The check there is redundant.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list