Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read8

[Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>]

Hi Greg,

On 6/6/22 08:48, Greg KH wrote:
>> -	rtw_read8(padapter, REG_FMETHR);
>> +	/* FIXME: should this read be removed? */
>> +	res = rtw_read8(padapter, REG_FMETHR, &reg);
>> +	(void)res;
> 
> What is that?  We don't do "empty" lines like this in the kernel for no
> good reason.  If the return value must be checked, then that's fine, but
> don't do it this way.  Shouldn't the function itself return an error?
> 
> And reading a value is sometimes required by hardware in order to have
> the write call go through.  But that's for PCI devices, not normally USB
> devices, but we could be wrong.  I wouldn't put a FIXME in here unless
> you have some plan for how to eventually solve it, otherwise someone
> might just drop it without knowing why the FIXME was ever added.
> 
> 

Ok, I will just make this function return an error. Thanks

[snip]

>>  
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/HalPhyRf_8188e.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/HalPhyRf_8188e.c
>> index b944c8071a3b..a5b7980dfcee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/HalPhyRf_8188e.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/HalPhyRf_8188e.c
>> @@ -463,6 +463,7 @@ void _PHY_SaveADDARegisters(struct adapter *adapt, u32 *ADDAReg, u32 *ADDABackup
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> +/* FIXME: return an error to caller */
> 
> When are these FIXME going to be resolved?  I don't like adding them for
> no good reason.
> 

After this series will go in. I really don't want to make this series 
huge, since ideally read errors should be passed up to callers. This 
driver has a lot of very deep call-chains, so fixing them in one series 
is just unreal

I have a plan to address these FIXMEs, that's why I've planted them.


thanks for review,


With regards,
Pavel Skripkin