Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: alienware-wmi-wmax: Fix uninitialized variable due to bad error handling

[Kurt Borja]

On Thu Apr 17, 2025 at 7:57 AM -03, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Kurt Borja wrote:
>
>> wmax_thermal_information() may also return -ENOMSG, which would leave
>> `id` uninitialized in thermal_profile_probe.
>> 
>> Reorder and modify logic to catch all errors.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z_-KVqNbD9ygvE2X@stanley.mountain
>> Fixes: 27e9e6339896 ("platform/x86: alienware-wmi: Refactor thermal control methods")
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> @Ilpo: This will definitely conflict with the for-next branch when
>> merging.
>
> Okay, thanks for the heads up (I'll eventually merge fixes into for-next
> once I merge this fix).
>
>> Also, the fixes tag references a commit from before the split (same
>> series though), but ofc this fix is meant to be applied on top of it
>> (fixes branch). Is this ok or would it be better to change the fixes
>> tag to the "split" commit?
>
> Pointing to the correct commit is preferred.
>
> It doesn't look very likely that the series would be "split" such that 
> only a part of it appears in a specific stable kernel so the difference 
> shouldn't matter anyway.

Yeah, this is what I thought too.

>
> In general, stable people would just send you a notification if something 
> cannot be backported to some stable version due to a conflict, and they'd 
> depend on you to submit the amended backport anyway so it's not much extra 
> "work" for them if something ends up conflicting. (And I don't think your 
> inbox would be exactly filling from stable notifications unlike mine --- 
> one of those joys of being a subsystem maintainer).

Guess I'm still lucky :)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to stop worrying so much about
stable haha

-- 
 ~ Kurt