[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1645783.2WuR77RKxS@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:23:24 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@...il.com>
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 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.]
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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