linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/29] memstick: core: stop passing pointer to card->current

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: <1288058656.4024.129.camel@maxim-laptop>
Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:04:16 +0200
From:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To:	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/29] memstick: core: stop passing pointer to
 card->current_mrq

On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 08:41 -0700, Alex Dubov wrote:
> 
> --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 13/29] memstick: core: stop passing pointer to card->current_mrq
> > To: "Alex Dubov" <oakad@...oo.com>
> > Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Maxim Levitsky" <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
> > Received: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:53 PM
> > This cleans up a lot of code and
> > makes the assumption
> > (*mrq == &card->current_mrq) official.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> Unfortunately, the description does not match the patch.
> While the main optimization (merging req and card arguments for good) is
> fully reasonable given the posterior knowledge of MSPro evolution, this
> patch introduces some functional changes as well, which can not be
> considered to be a pure cleanup. 
Agreed, some stuff slipped to that patch, will split.



> Some WARN_ONs also appear to be misplaced:
> 
> >         if (msb->block_req) {
> > -            mspro_block_complete_req(card, (*mrq)->error);
> > +            mspro_block_complete_req(card, mrq->error);
> >             error = mspro_block_issue_req(card, false);
> > 
> > -            if (!msb->block_req) {
> > +            if (error) {
> > +                WARN_ON(msb->block_req);
Nope that on purpose.
If mspro_block_issue_req returns error, the msb->block_req must be NULL.
 

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

--
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/