| Message ID | 1406215064-11296-2-git-send-email-vdonnefort@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:17:44 +0200 Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@gmail.com> wrote: > This patch fixes the irq request which was bypassed regardless of the > device_register function return. hm, I think I'll rewrite that to "pcf8563_probe() failed to check the devm_rtc_device_register() return value" So what are the runtime effects of this fix? Did Dan's kernel malfunction? From code inspection? Is the patch an urgent fix? I suspect not, but I don't like to guess.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:04:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:17:44 +0200 Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This patch fixes the irq request which was bypassed regardless of the > > device_register function return. > > hm, I think I'll rewrite that to > > "pcf8563_probe() failed to check the devm_rtc_device_register() return value" > > So what are the runtime effects of this fix? Did Dan's kernel > malfunction? From code inspection? It's a static checker warning about unreachable code on linux-next. > Is the patch an urgent fix? I suspect not, but I don't like to guess. The buggy patch is only 2 days old in linux-next. Fixes: 80ee1fc9625d ('drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c: add alarm support') regards, dan carpenter
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c index 98b35d2..5a197d9 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c @@ -419,7 +419,8 @@ static int pcf8563_probe(struct i2c_client *client, pcf8563_driver.driver.name, &pcf8563_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE); - return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pcf8563->rtc); + if (IS_ERR(pcf8563->rtc)) + return PTR_ERR(pcf8563->rtc); if (client->irq > 0) { err = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq,
This patch fixes the irq request which was bypassed regardless of the device_register function return. Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@gmail.com>