linux-kernel - Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog 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:	Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:23:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Andrew Victor" <avictor.za@...il.com>
Cc:	wim@...ana.be, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:40:46 +0200
"Andrew Victor" <avictor.za@...il.com> wrote:

> +static int __init at91wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	int res;
> +
> +	if (at91wdt_miscdev.parent)
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	at91wdt_miscdev.parent = &pdev->dev;
> +
> +	res = misc_register(&at91wdt_miscdev);
> +	if (res)
> +		return res;
> +
> +	/* Set watchdog */
> +	if (at91_wdt_settimeout(wdt_timeout) == -EINVAL) {
> +		pr_info("at91sam9_wdt: timeout must be between 1 and %d.\n",
> +			WDT_MAX_TIME);

Would printk(KERN_ERR be more appropriate here?

> +		return 0;

That looks like the wrong return value?

> +	}
> +
> +	return 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/