linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] acpi_power_meter: hwmon driver for ACPI 4.0 power meters

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]

Message-ID: <20090818162405.GB10233@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:24:05 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi_power_meter: hwmon driver for ACPI 4.0 power
	meters

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:05:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > +		ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "Evaluating _PAI"));
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (data)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> I find this test of `data' inexplicable.  Is it just me, or do we need
> a comment here?

ACPI spec says that the _PAI method passes back 0 on success.  I guess I'll
reroll the patch with a comment stating that.

> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > +		ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "Evaluating _SHL"));
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (data)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> ditto.

Ditto.

--D
--
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/