linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide-cd: cdrom_decode_status: use return codes instead of naked numbers

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, 7 Apr 2009 08:38:21 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide-cd: cdrom_decode_status: use return codes
	instead of naked numbers

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:00:15PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 05 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Remove unused SECTOR_SIZE while at it.
> > 
> > There should be no functional change resulting from this patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...il.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -431,7 +425,7 @@ static int cdrom_decode_status(ide_drive_t *drive, u8 stat)
> >  	/* if we got a CHECK_CONDITION status, queue a request sense command */
> >  	if (stat & ATA_ERR)
> >  		cdrom_queue_request_sense(drive, NULL, NULL);
> > -	return 1;
> > +	return REQ_RECOVER;
> >  
> >  end_request:
> >  	if (stat & ATA_ERR) {
> > @@ -445,9 +439,9 @@ end_request:
> >  		hwif->rq = NULL;
> >  
> >  		cdrom_queue_request_sense(drive, rq->sense, rq);
> > -		return 1;
> > -	} else
> > -		return 2;
> > +		return REQ_RECOVER;
> > +	}
> > +	return REQ_FAIL;
> >  }
> 
> Could it be that cdrom_newpc_intr() chunk got lost somewhere along the way,
> IIRC it was there?

That I dropped :), my bad.

> > +/* internal decode_status codes */
> > +#define REQ_CONT               0
> > +#define REQ_RECOVER            1
> > +#define REQ_FAIL               2
> 
> Did you notice my comments about REQ_* in previous mail?

Yep, about those - is there a valid reason for calling them IDE_RQ_*?
I know REQ_* is too generic but since they're private to the driver it
really is the only proper naming you _can_ have without adding too much
information to the name. FWIW, SCSI has even more generic names for them
- SUCCESS, FAILED, etc. And the IDE_* prefix is only then called for
when they're going to be visible/used by some other IDE parts. So IMHO
REQ_* or RQ_* is actually better in this case.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
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/