linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

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, 05 Aug 2013 18:24:43 +0200
From:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, trivial@...nel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	m.chehab@...sung.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

Hello Julia,

IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.

just my 2 cents,
re,
 wh

Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> int value)
>>>      unsigned char com1, com8, aech, aechh;
>>>
>>>      ret = ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM1, &com1) +
>>> -        ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8);
>>> -        ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh);
>>> +    ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8);
>>> +    ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh);
>>>      if (ret)
>>>          return ret;
>>>
>>
>> The new indenting isn't correct here and anyway the intent was to
>> combine all the error codes together and return them as an error
>> code jumble.  I'm not a fan of error code jumbles, probably the
>> right thing is to check each function call or, barring that, to
>> return -EIO.
> 
> Oops, thanks for spotting that.  I'm not sure whether it is safe to
> abort these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could
> introduce some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
> 
> What should I do with the big patch?  Resend it with this cut out?  Or,
> considering that I might have overlooked something else, send 90 some
> little ones?
> 
> thanks,
> julia
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
--
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/