On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:52, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020, Peter Rosin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On 2020-09-09 21:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 20:36, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:47:16 +0200 >> >> Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with >> >>> dev_err_probe(). Less code and also it prints the error value. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> >> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> >> >>> >> >> I don't have the thread to hand, but this tripped a warning next >> >> and the patch was dropped as a result. See below. >> > >> > Thanks for letting me know. If you mean the warning caused by: >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ >> > then the driver-core patch was dropped, not the iio one: >> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/[email protected]/T/#t >> > >> > So we are good here :) >> >> No, we are definitely not good. See below. That means "See below", and >> not "Please take a guess at what is being talking about". > > > >> >> >>> @@ -596,12 +594,9 @@ static int stm32_adc_core_switches_probe(struct >> >>> device *dev, >> >>> priv->booster = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, >> >>> "booster"); >> >>> if (IS_ERR(priv->booster)) { >> >>> ret = PTR_ERR(priv->booster); >> >>> - if (ret != -ENODEV) { >> >>> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >> >>> - dev_err(dev, "can't get booster >> >>> %d\n", >> >>> - ret); >> >>> - return ret; >> >>> - } >> >>> + if (ret != -ENODEV) >> >>> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "can't get >> >>> booster\n"); >> >> >> >> This tripped a warning and got the patch dropped because we no longer >> >> return on error. >> >> As Jonathan already said, we no longer return in this hunk. I.e., you have >> clobbered the error path. > > > Exactly my point why I proposed _must_check in the first place.
That was not exactly that point as you did not mention possible errors but only "miss the opportunity to optimize". Optimization is different things than a mistake. Best regards, Krzysztof
