On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 07:43:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/08/2024 18:02, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 04:14:02PM +0800, Shen Lichuan wrote: > >> Use dev_err_probe() to simplify the error path and unify a message > >> template. > >> > >> Using this helper is totally fine even if err is known to never > >> be -EPROBE_DEFER. > >> > >> The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format > >> of the error code, it being emitted symbolically and the fact that > >> the error code is returned which allows more compact error paths. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Shen Lichuan <[email protected]> > > > > ... > > > >> @@ -1576,9 +1574,8 @@ static int at86rf230_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > >> > >> lp->regmap = devm_regmap_init_spi(spi, &at86rf230_regmap_spi_config); > >> if (IS_ERR(lp->regmap)) { > >> - rc = PTR_ERR(lp->regmap); > >> - dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to allocate register map: %d\n", > >> - rc); > >> + dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(lp->regmap), > >> + "Failed to allocate register map\n"); > >> goto free_dev; > > > > After branching to dev_free the function will return rc. > > So I think it still needs to be set a in this error path. > > Another bug introduced by @vivo.com. > > Since ~2 weeks there is tremendous amount of trivial patches coming from > vivo.com. I identified at least 5 buggy, where the contributor did not > understand the code. > > All these "trivial" improvements should be really double-checked.
Are you concerned about those that have been accepted?
