Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ALSA: ac97c: Fix an error handling path in 'atmel_ac97c_probe()'

From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
	perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.com, arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com,
	nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, broonie@kernel.org,
	garsilva@embeddedor.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
	bhumirks@gmail.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ALSA: ac97c: Fix an error handling path in 'atmel_ac97c_probe()'
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:56:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170831095615.lpon4a36vil6avma@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708311020340.3243@hadrien>

On 31/08/2017 at 10:23:19 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> 
> > On 31/08/2017 at 06:40:42 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > If 'clk_prepare_enable()' fails, we must release some resources before
> > > returning. Add a new label in the existing error handling path and 'goto'
> > > there.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 260ea95cc027 ("ASoC: atmel: ac97c: Handle return value of clk_prepare_enable.")
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> >
> > And here is the fallout of the stupid, brainless "fixing" of issues
> > reported by static analysis tools.
> >
> > This clk_prepare_enable will never fail. If it was going to fail, the
> > platform would never boot to a point were it is able to execute that
> > code. It is really annoying to have so much churn for absolutely 0
> > benefit.
> 
> Would it be more productive to put the code back like it was before, ie no
> return value and no check, and add a comment to the definition of
> clk_prepare_enable indicating that there are many case where the call
> cannot fail?  Grepping through the code suggests that it is about 50-50 on
> checking the return value or not doing so, which might suggest that
> checking the value is often not required.
> 

I'd say that it is often useless to test the value. I don't have any
problem with the test as it doesn't add much (at least it doesn't print
an error message). So it may stays here. What I'm really unhappy about
is people sending hundreds of similar, autogenerated patches to
maintainers without actually putting any thought into them. That put all
the burden on the maintainers to weed out the incorrect patches.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com