From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751291AbdHaJ42 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 05:56:28 -0400 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:43952 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750908AbdHaJ41 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 05:56:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:56:16 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Julia Lawall Cc: Christophe JAILLET , 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()' Message-ID: <20170831095615.lpon4a36vil6avma@piout.net> References: <20170831044042.23306-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20170831081021.g4luo557ggtnyfyg@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:56:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ALSA: ac97c: Fix an error handling path in 'atmel_ac97c_probe()' Message-Id: <20170831095615.lpon4a36vil6avma@piout.net> List-Id: References: <20170831044042.23306-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20170831081021.g4luo557ggtnyfyg@piout.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, garsilva@embeddedor.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, tiwai@suse.com, broonie@kernel.org, Christophe JAILLET , arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com, bhumirks@gmail.com 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 > > > > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: ac97c: Fix an error handling path in 'atmel_ac97c_probe()' Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20170831095615.lpon4a36vil6avma@piout.net> References: <20170831044042.23306-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20170831081021.g4luo557ggtnyfyg@piout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com (mail.free-electrons.com [62.4.15.54]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B3F26731C for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:56:26 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Julia Lawall Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, garsilva@embeddedor.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, tiwai@suse.com, broonie@kernel.org, Christophe JAILLET , arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com, bhumirks@gmail.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org 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 > > > > 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