[PATCH] gma500: handling failed allocation

[Insu Yun]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:46 PM, One Thousand Gnomes <
gnomes at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:05:16 -0500
> Insu Yun <wuninsu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since drm_property_create_range can be failed in memory pressure,
> > it needs to be handled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Insu Yun <wuninsu at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c
> > index cb95765..31085e4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c
> > @@ -683,6 +683,8 @@ static int psb_create_backlight_property(struct
> drm_device *dev)
> >               return 0;
> >
> >       backlight = drm_property_create_range(dev, 0, "backlight", 0, 100);
> > +     if (!backlight)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> >
> >       dev_priv->backlight_property = backlight;
> >
>
> NAK.
>
> If we fail to create the backlight we are better off continuing than
> failing. The user just loses backlight control rather than having no
> display at all.
>
> If you check the callers you'll notice that the only caller doesn't even
> check the return code anyway so your patch is a no-op. If you are going
> to add error checking to anything with a patch please work back through
> the call chain and check the effect of the new error return - if any.
>
> A better patch I think would be to just eliminate the function and turn
> it into a tiny bit of inlined code.
>
> I'll send a patch to do that shortly.
>

Thanks


>
> Alan
>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards
Insu Yun
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20160129/13658e6e/attachment-0001.html>