linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ALSA: at73c213: clk_round_rate() can return a zero upon error

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, 10 Dec 2013 21:20:51 +0100
From:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:	Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@...dia.com>
Cc:	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: at73c213: clk_round_rate() can return a zero upon error

At Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:46:43 -0800,
Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > At Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:40:48 -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>
> >> Treat both negative and zero return values from clk_round_rate()
> >> as errors.  This is needed since subsequent patches will convert
> >> clk_round_rate()'s return value to be an unsigned type, rather
> >> than a signed type, since some clock sources can generate rates higher
> >> than (2^31)-1 Hz.
> >
> > Is the behavior "returning zero upon error" already in 3.13?  That is,
> > should this (and another) patch be taken as a 3.13-fix patch, or it's
> > for 3.14?
> 
> It depends on the platform.  The Common Clock Framework code returns 0 
> upon error right now.  But other clock framework implementations, such as 
> the one used by the Atmel AT91 boards, return negative error codes.  And 
> looking at the mainline code, it looks like the at73c213 chip is most 
> likely to be used on AT91 boards.
> 
> So if you want to send this patch for v3.13-rc, it's probably justified,
> but it's low-priority.  v3.14 is also fine.
> 
> I'll be sending some followup patches to the platform maintainers to 
> change the clock framework code to return 0 upon error.  But those can't 
> be applied until the drivers are fixed, if we want to avoid regressions in 
> error path handling.  So from that point of view, applying these driver 
> patches in v3.13-rc would mean there is less delay to getting the platform 
> clock framework fixes upstream :-)

OK, unless any known regressions are reported, I'm inclined to put
this for 3.14.  Now applied to for-next branch.  Thanks!


Takashi
--
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/