| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080525115936.7dbf2ecd@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:59:36 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() question On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:43:47 +0300 Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg> wrote: > Hi all, > > In the file: Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt is written: > > pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() will always be able to set the same or a > smaller mask as pci_set_dma_mask(). However for the rare case that a > device driver only uses consistent allocations, one would have to > check the return value from pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(). > > grep-ing drivers/net/* shows that in many drivers > the return value of pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() is checked > in the path where pci_set_dma_mask() was already successfull. > Sure, this is during driver's initiallysation, so it is not time > critical. > > My question: Is it worth to remove the unnecessary checks? > I could prepare patches if you find it worthfull. > I think it would actually be harmful. Checking for errors even if they shouldn't happen for things like this makes drivers better! If something weird is going on it gets detected earlier... IN general, defensive programming makes a lot of sense. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists