linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: dapm: If one widget fails, do not force all subsequent widgets to fail too

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]

Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:15:59 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	arnd@...db.de, olalilja@...oo.se, ola.o.lilja@...ricsson.com,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: dapm: If one widget fails, do not force all
 subsequent widgets to fail too

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 04:09:08PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 31/07/12 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:

> >To reiterate, this is in *no* way urgent or even a bug fix.

> It fixes sound in our driver.

> Without this the card failes to instantiate.

You're kidding, right?  Fix the actual error.

> Isn't the return code incorrect? There are a multitude of reasons
> why snd_soc_dapm_new_control() would fail. No-memory is just one of
> them, so why do we force this probable lie?

I don't think anyone actually cares what the error code is, feel free to
pick another random number.
--
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/