[PATCH] ibmvnic: Use -EBUSY in __ibmvnic_reset()
Nick Child
nnac123 at linux.ibm.com
Wed Apr 24 00:55:57 AEST 2024
On 4/23/24 06:55, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:54:55PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 16:08 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring at users.sourceforge.net>
>>> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:46:17 +0200
>>>
>>> Add a minus sign before the error code “EBUSY”
>>> so that a negative value will be used as in other cases.
>>>
>>> This issue was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring at users.sourceforge.net>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>>> index 5e9a93bdb518..737ae83a836a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>>> @@ -3212,7 +3212,7 @@ static void __ibmvnic_reset(struct work_struct *work)
>>> adapter->state == VNIC_REMOVED) {
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->state_lock, flags);
>>> kfree(rwi);
>>> - rc = EBUSY;
>>> + rc = -EBUSY;
>>> break;
>>>
>>
>> AFAICS the error is always used as bool, so this will not change any
>> behavior in practice. I tend to think we should not merge this kind of
>> change outside some larger work in the same area, but I'd love a second
>> opinion from the driver owners.
>
> I missed the original patch due to my procmail filters...
>
> You're right that it doesn't affect the behavior of the driver except
> for the debug output when we do:
>
> netdev_dbg(adapter->netdev, "Reset failed, rc=%d\n", rc);
>
> But the - was left off uninitentionally so I think we should apply it.
>
> I have been trying to look for similar bugs where the - is left off.
> It's a bit challenging because there places where we use positive
> error codes deliberately. But in this case a static checker could
> easily detect the bug with a low false positive ratio by saying, "We're
> mixing normal negative error codes with positive EBUSY".
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Hello, small clarification, this patch will not effect the debug print
statement due to the break statement immediately following:
while () {
if () {
rc = -EBUSY;
break;
}
netdev_dbg(adapter->netdev, "Reset failed, rc=%d\n", rc);
}
Though this return code can be passed to adapter->reset_done_rc, which
is only treated as a boolean.
So, the point of the patch not doing any behavioral differences is still
true.
Personally, I don't have strong opinions on this.
Reviewed-by: Nick Child <nnac123 at linux.ibm.com>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list