Re: [PATCH] of: Fix issue where code would fall through to error case.

[Frank Rowand]

On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
> <moritz.fischer.private@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>>
>>>>>              err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>>>              if (err)
>>>>> -                    break;
>>>>> +                    goto err_out;
>>>>>      }
>>>>>
>>>>> +    of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>>  err_out:
>>>>>      pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>>  out:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>>
>>>
>>>         out:
>>>                 of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>                 return err;
>>>
>>>         err_out:
>>>                 pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>                 goto out;
>>>         }
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>>
>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
>> common pattern,
>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
> 
> Both are ugly. Just do:
> 
> if (err)
>   pr_err(...);
> 
> Rob

Agreed.  Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.

-Frank