Re: [PATCH net] net: wwan: iosm: Fix error handling path in ipc_pcie_probe()

[Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>]

Hi Simon,

On 09/04/23 1:00 am, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 11:12:25PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 08/04/23 9:02 pm, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 11:56:07PM -0700, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>>>> Smatch reports:
>>>> 	drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c:298 ipc_pcie_probe()
>>>> 	warn: missing unwind goto?
>>>>
>>>> When dma_set_mask fails it directly returns without disabling pci
>>>> device and freeing ipc_pcie. Fix this my calling a correct goto label
>>>>
>>>> As dma_set_mask returns either 0 or -EIO, we can use a goto label, as
>>>> it finally returns -EIO.
>>>>
>>>> Renamed the goto label as name of the label before this patch is not
>>>> relevant after this patch.
>>>
>>> nit: I agree that it's nice to name the labels after what they unwind,
>>> rather than where they are called from. But now both schemes
>>> are used in this function.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the review.
>> I agree that the naming of the label is inconsistent, should we do something
>> like below?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
>> b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
>> index 5bf5a93937c9..04517bd3325a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_pcie.c
>> @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static int ipc_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pci,
>>          ret = dma_set_mask(ipc_pcie->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>>          if (ret) {
>>                  dev_err(ipc_pcie->dev, "Could not set PCI DMA mask: %d",
>> ret);
>> -               return ret;
>> +               goto set_mask_fail;
>>          }
>>
>>          ipc_pcie_config_aspm(ipc_pcie);
>> @@ -323,6 +323,7 @@ static int ipc_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pci,
>>   imem_init_fail:
>>          ipc_pcie_resources_release(ipc_pcie);
>>   resources_req_fail:
>> +set_mask_fail:
>>          pci_disable_device(pci);
>>   pci_enable_fail:
>>          kfree(ipc_pcie);
>>
>>
>>
>> -- but resources_req_fail: has nothing in its block particularly.
> 
> I think this situation is common when one names the labels
> after where they come from. So I'd say this is ok.
> 
Thanks I have a sent a V2 with this.

> An alternative would be to rename all three of labels after what they
> unwind.

Other functions in this file are using similar labels. So may be we 
could with above diff(V2 patch).

Regards,
Harshit