Fix badly hardcoded return return value from under fail-label. All goto branches to the label set the "ret"-variable accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c index 3a763f7..fa9fff3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c @@ -1027,5 +1027,5 @@ int tilcdc_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev)
fail: tilcdc_crtc_destroy(crtc); - return -ENOMEM; + return -ret; }
Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com writes:
Fix badly hardcoded return return value from under fail-label. All goto branches to the label set the "ret"-variable accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com
drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c index 3a763f7..fa9fff3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c @@ -1027,5 +1027,5 @@ int tilcdc_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev)
fail: tilcdc_crtc_destroy(crtc);
- return -ENOMEM;
- return -ret;
Hi,
Shouldn't it read ret instead of -ret? The places that set ret already make it negative, while turning it positive looks like would fail the verification done by the caller.
On 01/31/17 17:46, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com writes:
Fix badly hardcoded return return value from under fail-label. All goto branches to the label set the "ret"-variable accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com
drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c index 3a763f7..fa9fff3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c @@ -1027,5 +1027,5 @@ int tilcdc_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev)
fail: tilcdc_crtc_destroy(crtc);
- return -ENOMEM;
- return -ret;
Hi,
Shouldn't it read ret instead of -ret? The places that set ret already make it negative, while turning it positive looks like would fail the verification done by the caller.
Argh.. sorry. I fixed it already in my branch but forgot to format the patch again... I'll do another version.
Thanks, Jyro
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi -
Jyri Sarha