drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'.
Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just
return the value instead.
Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@vivo.com>
---
drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c
index 8e2db2e5b64b..3c2f68383010 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c
@@ -599,8 +599,7 @@ int plda_pcie_host_init(struct plda_pcie_rp *port, struct pci_ops *ops,
bridge = devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge(dev, 0);
if (!bridge)
- return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM,
- "failed to alloc bridge\n");
+ return -ENOMEM;
if (port->host_ops && port->host_ops->host_init) {
ret = port->host_ops->host_init(port);
--
2.34.1
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:52:00PM +0800, Xichao Zhao wrote: > The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'. > Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just > return the value instead. Seems sort of weird to avoid dev_err_probe(-ENOMEM) because we have internal knowledge that dev_err_probe() does nothing in that case. It leads to patterns where the first few things in a .probe() function return -ENOMEM directly and later things use dev_err_probe(), and there's no obvious reason for the difference. But it's very common, so I guess it's OK with me to follow the common pattern even though it's a bit strange. > Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@vivo.com> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > index 8e2db2e5b64b..3c2f68383010 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > @@ -599,8 +599,7 @@ int plda_pcie_host_init(struct plda_pcie_rp *port, struct pci_ops *ops, > > bridge = devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge(dev, 0); > if (!bridge) > - return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, > - "failed to alloc bridge\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > > if (port->host_ops && port->host_ops->host_init) { > ret = port->host_ops->host_init(port); > -- > 2.34.1 >
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:52:00PM GMT, Xichao Zhao wrote: > The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'. > Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just > return the value instead. > > Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@vivo.com> Applied to pci/controller/plda! - Mani > --- > drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > index 8e2db2e5b64b..3c2f68383010 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > @@ -599,8 +599,7 @@ int plda_pcie_host_init(struct plda_pcie_rp *port, struct pci_ops *ops, > > bridge = devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge(dev, 0); > if (!bridge) > - return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, > - "failed to alloc bridge\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > > if (port->host_ops && port->host_ops->host_init) { > ret = port->host_ops->host_init(port); > -- > 2.34.1 > -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:52:00PM GMT, Xichao Zhao wrote: > The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'. > Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just > return the value instead. > Change is fine as it is. But I think devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge() should return the actual error pointer instead of NULL and let the callers guess the errno. Callers are using both -ENOMEM and -ENODEV, both of then will mask the actual errno that caused the failure. Cleanup task for someone interested :) - Mani > Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@vivo.com> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > index 8e2db2e5b64b..3c2f68383010 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/plda/pcie-plda-host.c > @@ -599,8 +599,7 @@ int plda_pcie_host_init(struct plda_pcie_rp *port, struct pci_ops *ops, > > bridge = devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge(dev, 0); > if (!bridge) > - return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, > - "failed to alloc bridge\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > > if (port->host_ops && port->host_ops->host_init) { > ret = port->host_ops->host_init(port); > -- > 2.34.1 > -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Hi Mani, On 9/8/2025 3:43 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:52:00PM GMT, Xichao Zhao wrote: >> The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'. >> Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just >> return the value instead. >> > > Change is fine as it is. But I think devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge() should return > the actual error pointer instead of NULL and let the callers guess the errno. > > Callers are using both -ENOMEM and -ENODEV, both of then will mask the actual > errno that caused the failure. > > Cleanup task for someone interested :) > > - Mani Did you really intend to do that, Should that be an RFC (for cleanup task) patch ? Thanks, Alok
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 06:55:29PM GMT, ALOK TIWARI wrote: > Hi Mani, > > On 9/8/2025 3:43 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:52:00PM GMT, Xichao Zhao wrote: > > > The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'. > > > Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just > > > return the value instead. > > > > > > > Change is fine as it is. But I think devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge() should return > > the actual error pointer instead of NULL and let the callers guess the errno. > > > > Callers are using both -ENOMEM and -ENODEV, both of then will mask the actual > > errno that caused the failure. > > > > Cleanup task for someone interested :) > > > > - Mani > > Did you really intend to do that, No, I don't have bandwidth right now. > Should that be an RFC (for cleanup task) patch ? > No need of RFC. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
On 9/15/2025 7:37 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> Change is fine as it is. But I think devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge() should return >>> the actual error pointer instead of NULL and let the callers guess the errno. >>> >>> Callers are using both -ENOMEM and -ENODEV, both of then will mask the actual >>> errno that caused the failure. >>> >>> Cleanup task for someone interested 🙂 >>> >>> - Mani >> Did you really intend to do that, > No, I don't have bandwidth right now. > >> Should that be an RFC (for cleanup task) patch ? I am planning to send a patch for this cleanup. It will touch all files under drivers/pci/controller/, and I hope it will be useful. Thanks, Alok
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.