Re: [PATCH v2] IB/hfi1: Fix hfi1_netdev_rx_init() error handling

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
	Grzegorz Andrejczuk <grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com>,
	Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IB/hfi1: Fix hfi1_netdev_rx_init() error handling
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 20:36:55 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200531173655.GT22511@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200531100512.GH66309@unreal>

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 01:05:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 05:02:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The hfi1_vnic_up() function doesn't check whether hfi1_netdev_rx_init()
> > returns errors.  In hfi1_vnic_init() we need to change the code to
> > preserve the error code instead of returning success.
> >
> > Fixes: 2280740f01ae ("IB/hfi1: Virtual Network Interface Controller (VNIC) HW support")
> > Fixes: 4730f4a6c6b2 ("IB/hfi1: Activate the dummy netdev")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Add error handling in hfi1_vnic_up() and add second fixes tag
> >
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/vnic_main.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/vnic_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/vnic_main.c
> > index b183c56b7b6a4..03f8be8e9488e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/vnic_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/vnic_main.c
> > @@ -457,13 +457,19 @@ static int hfi1_vnic_up(struct hfi1_vnic_vport_info *vinfo)
> >  	if (rc < 0)
> >  		return rc;
> >
> > -	hfi1_netdev_rx_init(dd);
> > +	rc = hfi1_netdev_rx_init(dd);
> > +	if (rc < 0)
> > +		goto err_remove;
> 
> Why did you check for the negative value here and didn't check below?
> 

I just copied the pattern in the nearest code.  I didn't realize until
now that it was different in both functions...  The checking isn't done
consistently in this file.

I can resend on Tuesday though if you want.

regards,
dan carpenter