On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 03:46:21PM +0900, Honggyu Kim wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On 4/23/2025 5:24 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Return -EEXIST if the node already exists. Don't return success.
> >
> > Fixes: 1bf270ac1b0a ("mm/mempolicy: support memory hotplug in weighted interleave")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Potentially returning success was intentional? This is from static
> > analysis and I can't be totally sure.
> >
> > mm/mempolicy.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index f43951668c41..0538a994440a 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -3539,7 +3539,7 @@ static const struct kobj_type wi_ktype = {
> > static int sysfs_wi_node_add(int nid)
> > {
> > - int ret = 0;
> > + int ret;
> > char *name;
> > struct iw_node_attr *new_attr;
> > @@ -3569,6 +3569,7 @@ static int sysfs_wi_node_add(int nid)
> > if (wi_group->nattrs[nid]) {
> > mutex_unlock(&wi_group->kobj_lock);
> > pr_info("node%d already exists\n", nid);
> > + ret = -EEXIST;
>
> Returning -EEXIST here looks good to me, but could you remove the above pr_info
> as well? I mean the following change is needed.
>
> - pr_info("node%d already exists\n", nid)
> + ret = -EEXIST;
>
> We don't need the above pr_info here because we delegate a warning message to
> its caller wi_node_notifier().
>
> This can close another warning report below.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505020458.yLHRAaW9-lkp@xxxxxxxxx
>
> If you apply my suggestion then please add
>
> Reviewed-by: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@xxxxxx>
>
Rakie Kim was pretty confident that returning 0 was intentional. Btw,
Smatch considers it intentional if the "ret = 0;" is within 5
lines of the goto. Or we could add a comment, which wouldn't silence
the warning but it would help people reading the code.
regards,
dan carpenter
