From: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Mao Jinlong <quic_jinlmao@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] coresight: Unify error handling in coresight_register()
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:15:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e451547b-15a7-4296-a5da-379640c141c7@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260202-arm_coresight_refactor_dev_register-v3-8-03292470c48c@arm.com>
On 02/02/2026 9:34 am, Leo Yan wrote:
> Unify error handling during registration:
>
> 1) Failures before device registration are handled by err_out, which
> releases platform data.
>
> 2) Jump to the out_unlock label on failures after device registration
> to unwind the flow via coresight_unregister().
>
> The "registered" variable is no longer used, remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-core.c | 17 +++++------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-core.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-core.c
> index 955af43010446803030973c72f07315492b2fcf3..65cf975493c86de42515845147d90497aa20c595 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-core.c
> @@ -1326,7 +1326,6 @@ struct coresight_device *coresight_register(struct coresight_desc *desc)
> {
> int ret;
> struct coresight_device *csdev;
> - bool registered = false;
>
> csdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*csdev), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!csdev) {
> @@ -1380,7 +1379,8 @@ struct coresight_device *coresight_register(struct coresight_desc *desc)
> * All resources are free'd explicitly via
> * coresight_device_release(), triggered from put_device().
> */
> - goto out_unlock;
> + mutex_unlock(&coresight_mutex);
> + goto err_out;
I'm not sure if replacing the "registered" system with extra calls to
unlock is necessarily better. I think the whole point of out_unlock was
to have a single call to unlock so it couldn't be forgotten or didn't
need to be duplicated.
Probably a better way to clean this up would be to pull out a function
for all the stuff that needs to be locked and use guard(). Then do the
stuff that doesn't need to be locked after that function. Either way it
doesn't look wrong.
> }
>
> ret = etm_perf_add_symlink_sink(csdev);
> @@ -1390,12 +1390,8 @@ struct coresight_device *coresight_register(struct coresight_desc *desc)
> * coresight_device_release() triggered from put_device(), which is in
> * turn called from function device_unregister().
> */
> - if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> - device_unregister(&csdev->dev);
> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> goto out_unlock;
> - }
> - /* Device is now registered */
> - registered = true;
>
> ret = coresight_create_conns_sysfs_group(csdev);
> if (ret)
> @@ -1415,11 +1411,8 @@ struct coresight_device *coresight_register(struct coresight_desc *desc)
> out_unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&coresight_mutex);
>
> - /* Unregister the device if needed */
> - if (registered) {
> - coresight_unregister(csdev);
> - return ERR_PTR(ret);
> - }
> + coresight_unregister(csdev);
> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>
> err_out:
> coresight_release_platform_data(desc->dev, desc->pdata);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-03 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-02 9:33 [PATCH v3 0/8] coresight: Fix device registration and unregistration Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] coresight: Fix memory leak in coresight_alloc_device_name() Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] coresight: Get parent device reference after sink ID map allocation Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] coresight: Protect unregistration with mutex Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] coresight: Refactor output connection sysfs link cleanup Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] coresight: Refactor sysfs connection group cleanup Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] coresight: Move sink validation into etm_perf_add_symlink_sink() Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] coresight: Do not mix success path with failure handling Leo Yan
2026-02-02 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] coresight: Unify error handling in coresight_register() Leo Yan
2026-02-03 11:15 ` James Clark [this message]
2026-02-09 11:28 ` Leo Yan
2026-02-09 11:59 ` Leo Yan
2026-02-03 11:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] coresight: Fix device registration and unregistration James Clark
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e451547b-15a7-4296-a5da-379640c141c7@linaro.org \
--to=james.clark@linaro.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=coresight@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mike.leach@arm.com \
--cc=quic_jinlmao@quicinc.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®