[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50AD723B.60605@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:30:51 +0100
From: Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
lenb@...nel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi_system_write_wakeup_device(): fix error check for
unsigned variable.
On 11/22/2012 01:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2012 01:05:30 AM Cyril Roelandt wrote:
>> On 11/21/2012 01:44 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 02:54:23 AM Cyril Roelandt wrote:
>>>> The LEN variable is unsigned, therefore checking whether it is less than 0 is
>>>> useless.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Cyril Roelandt<tipecaml@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/acpi/proc.c | 2 --
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/proc.c b/drivers/acpi/proc.c
>>>> index 27adb09..37871a7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/proc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/proc.c
>>>> @@ -366,8 +366,6 @@ acpi_system_write_wakeup_device(struct file *file,
>>>>
>>>> if (len> 4)
>>>> len = 4;
>>>> - if (len< 0)
>>>> - return -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> I would prefer to check if count< 0 instead.
>>>
>>
>>
>> count has type size_t, so it is also an unsigned variable. I think that
>> acpi_system_write_wakeup_device really cannot be called with a "count"
>> parameter that is less than 0.
>
> OK
>
> So I suppose we can just drop len entirely and replace it with count, right?
> [And drop the< 0 check too.]
>
Indeed, I'll resend.
Cyril Roelandt.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists