IMHO at least the activation check is a valid case. It just check the status flag and returns EINVAL without setting errno:
292 if (!device_active(dev)) 293 return -EINVAL; Thanks, -Yuxiao On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:02 PM Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 11:14:19AM -0700, Yuxiao Zhang wrote: > > > eth_start_udev can fail but errno could still be zero which causes the > > function ignores the error silently. This fix catches the error > > properly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuxiao Zhang <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > net/eth-uclass.c | 11 ++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/eth-uclass.c b/net/eth-uclass.c > > index 5c437143a30..5518268bd68 100644 > > --- a/net/eth-uclass.c > > +++ b/net/eth-uclass.c > > @@ -347,12 +347,13 @@ int eth_init(void) > > debug("Trying %s\n", current->name); > > > > ret = eth_start_udev(current); > > - if (ret < 0) > > - ret = eth_errno; > > - else > > + if (ret < 0) { > > + if (eth_errno < 0) > > + ret = eth_errno; > > + debug("%s start failed (ret=%d)\n", > current->name, ret); > > + } else { > > break; > > - > > - debug("FAIL\n"); > > + } > > } else { > > debug("PROBE FAIL\n"); > > } > > Is it a valid case for eth_start_udev to have failed and not set eth_errno? > > -- > Tom >
