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>
