Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:26:07 +0100 | From | Horatiu Vultur - M31836 <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: phy: micrel: Fix warn: passing zero to PTR_ERR |
| |
The 12/01/2022 07:08, Divya Koppera - I30481 wrote: > Hi Horatiu, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 8:21 PM > > To: Divya Koppera - I30481 <Divya.Koppera@microchip.com> > > Cc: andrew@lunn.ch; hkallweit1@gmail.com; linux@armlinux.org.uk; > > davem@davemloft.net; edumazet@google.com; kuba@kernel.org; > > pabeni@redhat.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org; richardcochran@gmail.com; UNGLinuxDriver > > <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>; Madhuri Sripada - I34878 > > <Madhuri.Sripada@microchip.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: phy: micrel: Fix warn: passing zero to > > PTR_ERR > > > > The 11/29/2022 15:46, Divya Koppera wrote: > > > > Hi Divya, > > > > > Handle the NULL pointer case > > > > > > Fixes New smatch warnings: > > > drivers/net/phy/micrel.c:2613 lan8814_ptp_probe_once() warn: passing > > zero to 'PTR_ERR' > > > > > > Fixes Old smatch warnings: > > > drivers/net/phy/micrel.c:1750 ksz886x_cable_test_get_status() error: > > > uninitialized symbol 'ret'. > > > > Shouldn't you split this patch in 2 different patches, as you fix 2 issues. > > I got these warnings in single mail, so thought of fixing it in one patch. Also, one patch has single line change so did this way. > Yeah, splitting sense good, will do in next revision. > > > Also any reason why you target net-next and not net? Because I can see the > > blamed patches on net branch. > > > > Initially I targeted for net-next and in second revision I moved to net as it is fix. But I got a comment as below. So again, targeted to net-next. > > " > > v1 -> v2: > > - Handled NULL pointer case > > - Changed subject line with net-next to net > > This is not a genuine bug fix, and so it should target next-next."
That is fine by me.
...
> > > > > > > > > static void lan8814_ptp_init(struct phy_device *phydev) { > > > + struct lan8814_shared_priv *shared_priv = phydev->shared->priv; > > > struct kszphy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; > > > struct kszphy_ptp_priv *ptp_priv = &priv->ptp_priv; > > > u32 temp; > > > > > > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK) || > > > - !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETWORK_PHY_TIMESTAMPING)) > > > + /* Check if PHC support is missing at the configuration level */ > > > + if (!shared_priv->ptp_clock) > > > return;
Sorry I forgot to mention this in the previous email. Can you rename shared_priv to just shared. Because in all the other places it is used shared and not shared_priv.
-- /Horatiu
| |