linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] panasonic-laptop: fix acpi_pcc_write

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:28:43 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ux.intel.com>,
	Márton Németh <nm127@...email.hu>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panasonic-laptop: fix acpi_pcc_write_sset return value

Hi Axel,

On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 02:46:58PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> In current implementation, acpi_pcc_write_sset return 1
> if write is successful, 0 if write is failed.
> But all the callers consider acpi_pcc_write_sset return 0
> if write is successful and return negative if write is failed.
>

Yes, I think most of the times we see AE_* outside of
drivers/acpi/acpica it is an error; we should be using standard eoro
codes instead.

> This patch changes the implementation of acpi_pcc_write_sset to
> return 0 if write is successful, -1 if write is failed.

Why not use something better than -1, maybe -EIO, and the propagate that
return code up the stack?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/