On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out >>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred. >>> >>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured) >>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c >>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c >>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay) >>> >>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, >>> phandle); >>> if (err) >>> - break; >>> + goto err_out; >>> } >>> >>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> err_out: >>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err); >>> out: >> >> Thanks for catching that. >> >> Rob, please apply. >> >> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]> >> >> -Frank > > On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for > both the no-error path and the error path something like: > > > out: > of_node_put(tree_symbols); > return err; > > err_out: > pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err); > goto out; > } > > > I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the common pattern, I can submit a v2 doing that instead. Cheers, Moritz
