> -----Original Message----- > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszew...@baylibre.com> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 17:44 > To: Liu, Yongxin <yongxin....@windriver.com> > Cc: David S . Miller <da...@davemloft.net>; netdev > <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; LKML <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "net: ethernet: ixgbe: check the return value > of ixgbe_mii_bus_init()" > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:51 AM Liu, Yongxin <yongxin....@windriver.com> > wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > true); > > > > > > > > - err = ixgbe_mii_bus_init(hw); > > > > - if (err) > > > > - goto err_netdev; > > > > + ixgbe_mii_bus_init(hw); > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > -err_netdev: > > > > - unregister_netdev(netdev); > > > > err_register: > > > > ixgbe_release_hw_control(adapter); > > > > ixgbe_clear_interrupt_scheme(adapter); > > > > -- > > > > 2.14.4 > > > > > > > > > > Then we should check if err == -ENODEV, not outright ignore all > > > potential errors, right? > > > > > > > Hm, it is weird to take -ENODEV as a no error. > > How about just return 0 instead of -ENODEV in the following function? > > > > No, it's perfectly fine. -ENODEV means there's no device and this can > happen. The caller can then act accordingly - for example: ignore that > fact. We do it in several places[1]. > > Bartosz > > [snip] > > [1] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c# > L714
Okay, please go ahead and fix this issue. Thanks, Yongxin
