linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] clockevents: return 'int' from clockevents_set

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, 13 May 2014 12:20:01 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] clockevents: return 'int' from clockevents_set_mode()

On 12 May 2014 15:49, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Does that handle_return_value() mean that you sprinkle WARN_ONs all
> over the place?

Yeah, probably it should have been done this way:

-               dev->set_mode(mode, dev);
+               if (dev->set_dev_mode) {
+                       int ret = dev->set_dev_mode(mode, dev);
+
+                       /* Currently available modes are not expected to fail */
+                       if (WARN_ON(ret))
+                               return ret;
+               } else {
+                       dev->set_mode(mode, dev);
+               }
+

My fault and a big one :(

> Does it mean, that you change the return value
> semantics of functions which happen to call clock_events_set_mode()
> just because it now has a return value?

I didn't do it, probably yet another bad/confusing log by me :(

>> All other are updated to return error codes.

When I read it now, I can see why it was confusing :(.
What I meant was:

"routines which had capability to return errors would now return them on
failure of clockevents_set_mode() as well.."

But even that isn't required and handling should be added only to callers
of clockevents_set_mode() which are issuing ONESHOT_STOPPED ..

> Find someone competent who reviews your patches, deals with you and
> when they make sense sends them to me.

I will make sure to get some Reviewed-by/Signed-off-by for my patches
from someone with good understanding of these frameworks before
sending them out again..

Sorry for the noise :(

--
viresh
--
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/