linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] clk: Add composite clock type

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: <20130205111522.GJ17786@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:15:22 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@...dia.com>
Cc:	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
	"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	"swarren@...dotorg.org" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"sboyd@...eaurora.org" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] clk: Add composite clock type

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:22:52AM +0100, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> index f30fb4b..8f88805 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ static u8 clk_composite_get_parent(struct clk_hw *hw)
>         const struct clk_ops *mux_ops = composite->mux_ops;
>         struct clk_hw *mux_hw = composite->mux_hw;
>  
> +       if (!mux_hw->clk)
> +	       return -EINVAL;
> +
>         mux_hw->clk = hw->clk;

That just looks totally wrong.

Firstly, according to the hunk, this function has the prototype:

static u8 clk_composite_get_parent(struct clk_hw *hw)

What do you think is the effect of passing -EINVAL back as a 'u8' ?

Secondly, the whole "check mux_hw->clk for NULL, and then overwrite it"
looks really really really wrong.  If it's already set, then why does it
need to be changed?  If it isn't set, why do you need to error out?

Thirdly, why is a function called "get_parent" modifying anything (isn't
it supposed to be _get_ing something?
--
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/