linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: let dev_set_drvdata return int instead of void as it can fail

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: <20110406110623.GC13963@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:06:23 +0200
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	shiraz.hashim@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: let dev_set_drvdata return int
 instead of void as it can fail

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:36:46AM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> 2011/4/6 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > ---
> > Hello,
> >
> > I wasn't sure what to return when dev_set_drvdata is called with
> > dev=NULL.  I choosed 0, but -EINVAL would be OK for me, too. What do you
> > think?
> 
> Why not just BUG_ON(!dev)? Is there a case when you might call this
> with dev==NULL that's not a driver bug?
I think BUG_ON is too harsh. Will resend with -EINVAL.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/