linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH V2 1/2] input: CMA3000 Accelerometer driver

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

Date:	Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:33:51 +0530
From:	"Hemanth V" <hemanthv@...com>
To:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH V2 1/2] input: CMA3000 Accelerometer driver

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> Hi Hemanth,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 04:02:11PM +0530, Hemanth V wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Do not like repeated release of resources in main and error path... Can
>> >we do it like:
>> >
>> >...
>> >disable_irq();
>> >error = cma3000_set(data, CMA3000_CTRL, ctrl, "ctrl");
>> >if (!error) {
>> >/* Settling time delay required after mode change */
>> >msleep(CMA3000_SETDELAY);
>> >}
>> >enable_irq();
>> >out:
>> >mutex_unlock();
>> >return error ? error : count;
>> 
>> I am thinking I can just add the below statement, and should be able to
>> remove repeated release.
>> 
>> return error ? error : count;
>> 
> 
> That would make us sleep for CMA3000_SETDELAY even in case of failure...
> ... But that should be OK.

I suppose it should not sleep if its the modified code segment as below

        error = CMA3000_SET(data, CMA3000_CTRL, ctrl, "ctrl");
        if (error < 0)
                goto err_op3_failed;

        /* Settling time delay required after mode change */
        msleep(CMA3000_SETDELAY);

err_op3_failed:
        enable_irq(data->client->irq);
err_op2_failed:
        mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
err_op1_failed:
        return (error ? error : count);


> 
>> >>+
>> >>+ if (data->client->irq) {
>> >>+ ret = request_threaded_irq(data->client->irq, NULL,
>> >>+ cma3000_thread_irq,
>> >>+ irqflags | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> >>+ data->client->name, data);
>> >>+
>> >>+ if (ret < 0) {
>> >>+ dev_err(&data->client->dev,
>> >>+ "request_threaded_irq failed\n");
>> >>+ goto err_op1_failed;
>> >>+ }
>> >>+ }
>> >
>> >What is the utility of the driver when there is no IRQ line?
>> 
>> Not sure I fully understand your comments.
>> Currently probe would return a failure.
>> 
> 
> You have a check for data->client->irq != 0 and finish probe() with
> success in case it is 0. The question is what is the use of the
> device/driver combo in case when data->client->irq == 0?

Yes agreed, will add a error scenario when data->client->irq == 0


--
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/