linux-kernel - RE: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] Add support for the Philips SA56004 temperature sensor.

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: <6E4D2678AC543844917CA081C9D6B33F047F51E5@XMB-AMS-103.cisco.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 May 2011 09:08:42 +0200
From:	"Stijn Devriendt (sdevrien)" <sdevrien@...co.com>
To:	"Guenter Roeck" <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc:	<khali@...ux-fr.org>, <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] Add support for the Philips SA56004 temperature sensor.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:guenter.roeck@...csson.com]
> 
> >  	if (!name) { /* identification failed */
> > @@ -1372,6 +1401,18 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client
> *new_client,
> >  	/* Set maximum conversion rate */
> >  	data->max_convrate = lm90_params[data->kind].max_convrate;
> >
> > +	if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT) {
> > +		if (lm90_params[data->kind].local_ext_offset > 0)
> > +			data->local_ext_offset =
> > +
lm90_params[data->kind].local_ext_offset;
> > +		else {
> > +			dev_err(&new_client->dev,
> > +			  "Invalid temperature extension register. "
> > +			  "Accuracy may be limited.\n");
> > +			data->flags &= (~LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT);
> > +		}
> 
> Either { } in both branches of the if statement, or none.
> ( ) around ~LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT is unnecessary.
> 
> I see it as BUG if LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT is set but local_ext_offset
isn't.
> That should be found during coding (or code review), and not be
exported
> to the user. So, from my perspective, the check is unnecessary. I'll
leave
> that up to Jean to decide, though.
> 
Do you think a BUG_ON() would be better suited here?

> In addition to the above, your patch generates several checkpatch
errors
> (trailing whitespace). Please fix.
I recall letting checkpatch yell at me... I'll have another round of it
to
be sure.

Thanks,
Stijn
--
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/