| Message ID | 20230417024745.59614-1-jkluo@hust.edu.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] iio: adc: mxs-lradc: fix the order of two cleanup operations | expand |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:47:45 -0700 Jiakai Luo <jkluo@hust.edu.cn> wrote: > Smatch reports: > drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c:766 mxs_lradc_adc_probe() warn: > missing unwind goto? > > the order of three init operation: > 1.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init > 2.iio_triggered_buffer_setup > 3.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_init > > thus, the order of three cleanup operation should be: > 1.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop > 2.iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup > 3.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove > > we exchange the order of two cleanup operations, > introducing the following differences: > 1.if mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init fails, returns directly; > 2.if trigger_init succeeds but iio_triggered_buffer_setup fails, > goto err_trig and remove the trigger. > > In addition, we also reorder the unwind that goes on in the > remove() callback to match the new ordering. > > Fixes: 6dd112b9f85e ("iio: adc: mxs-lradc: Add support for ADC driver") > Signed-off-by: Jiakai Luo <jkluo@hust.edu.cn> > Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn> If resending please state why. I'm guessing on this occasion it was because you realised a fresh thread is expected for a new patch. Also, even if you are just amending the patch description, please increase the version number so that we can be sure we are looking at latest version. I already picked it from the earlier posting and this appears unchanged so all's well that ends well! Jonathan > --- > The issue is found by static analysis and remains untested. > --- > drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c > index bca79a93cbe4..85882509b7d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c > @@ -757,13 +757,13 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > ret = mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init(iio); > if (ret) > - goto err_trig; > + return ret; > > ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(iio, &iio_pollfunc_store_time, > &mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_handler, > &mxs_lradc_adc_buffer_ops); > if (ret) > - return ret; > + goto err_trig; > > adc->vref_mv = mxs_lradc_adc_vref_mv[lradc->soc]; > > @@ -801,9 +801,9 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > err_dev: > mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); > - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); > -err_trig: > iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); > +err_trig: > + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); > return ret; > } > > @@ -814,8 +814,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > iio_device_unregister(iio); > mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); > - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); > iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); > + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); > > return 0; > }
On 2023/4/23 18:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:47:45 -0700 > Jiakai Luo <jkluo@hust.edu.cn> wrote: > >> Smatch reports: >> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c:766 mxs_lradc_adc_probe() warn: >> missing unwind goto? >> >> the order of three init operation: >> 1.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init >> 2.iio_triggered_buffer_setup >> 3.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_init >> >> thus, the order of three cleanup operation should be: >> 1.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop >> 2.iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup >> 3.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove >> >> we exchange the order of two cleanup operations, >> introducing the following differences: >> 1.if mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init fails, returns directly; >> 2.if trigger_init succeeds but iio_triggered_buffer_setup fails, >> goto err_trig and remove the trigger. >> >> In addition, we also reorder the unwind that goes on in the >> remove() callback to match the new ordering. >> >> Fixes: 6dd112b9f85e ("iio: adc: mxs-lradc: Add support for ADC driver") >> Signed-off-by: Jiakai Luo <jkluo@hust.edu.cn> >> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn> > If resending please state why. I'm guessing on this occasion it was because > you realised a fresh thread is expected for a new patch. > > Also, even if you are just amending the patch description, please increase > the version number so that we can be sure we are looking at latest version. > > I already picked it from the earlier posting and this appears unchanged > so all's well that ends well! > > Jonathan Hi JC, Jiakai originally would like to send a reminder about his patch, but mistakenly sent a v2 version. Please ignore this v2 version since this version is the same with v1 version. Sorry for the mistake. > >> --- >> The issue is found by static analysis and remains untested. >> --- >> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c | 10 +++++----- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c >> index bca79a93cbe4..85882509b7d9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c >> @@ -757,13 +757,13 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> ret = mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init(iio); >> if (ret) >> - goto err_trig; >> + return ret; >> >> ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(iio, &iio_pollfunc_store_time, >> &mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_handler, >> &mxs_lradc_adc_buffer_ops); >> if (ret) >> - return ret; >> + goto err_trig; >> >> adc->vref_mv = mxs_lradc_adc_vref_mv[lradc->soc]; >> >> @@ -801,9 +801,9 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> err_dev: >> mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); >> - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); >> -err_trig: >> iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); >> +err_trig: >> + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); >> return ret; >> } >> >> @@ -814,8 +814,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> iio_device_unregister(iio); >> mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); >> - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); >> iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); >> + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); >> >> return 0; >> }
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c index bca79a93cbe4..85882509b7d9 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c @@ -757,13 +757,13 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) ret = mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init(iio); if (ret) - goto err_trig; + return ret; ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(iio, &iio_pollfunc_store_time, &mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_handler, &mxs_lradc_adc_buffer_ops); if (ret) - return ret; + goto err_trig; adc->vref_mv = mxs_lradc_adc_vref_mv[lradc->soc]; @@ -801,9 +801,9 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) err_dev: mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); -err_trig: iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); +err_trig: + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); return ret; } @@ -814,8 +814,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) iio_device_unregister(iio); mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop(adc); - mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(iio); + mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove(iio); return 0; }
Smatch reports: drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c:766 mxs_lradc_adc_probe() warn: missing unwind goto? the order of three init operation: 1.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init 2.iio_triggered_buffer_setup 3.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_init thus, the order of three cleanup operation should be: 1.mxs_lradc_adc_hw_stop 2.iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup 3.mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_remove we exchange the order of two cleanup operations, introducing the following differences: 1.if mxs_lradc_adc_trigger_init fails, returns directly; 2.if trigger_init succeeds but iio_triggered_buffer_setup fails, goto err_trig and remove the trigger. In addition, we also reorder the unwind that goes on in the remove() callback to match the new ordering. Fixes: 6dd112b9f85e ("iio: adc: mxs-lradc: Add support for ADC driver") Signed-off-by: Jiakai Luo <jkluo@hust.edu.cn> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn> --- The issue is found by static analysis and remains untested. --- drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc-adc.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)