linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] acpi: Return -ENOENT in acpi_table

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: <1376940579.10300.474.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:29:39 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	lenb@...nel.org, rjw@...k.pl, liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] acpi: Return -ENOENT in acpi_table_parse() and fix
 wrong comment.

On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:06 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> The comment about return value of acpi_table_parse() is incorrect.
> This patch fix it.
> 
> Furthermore, if the table is not found, return 1 means nothing, and
> make it difficult to write the comment. So return -ENOENT when the
> table is not found, and correct the comment.

I am OK with the change, but the above description is not very clear.
You should state that all callers only check if the function succeeded
or not.  So, you are simplifying the semantics by returning -errno for
all failure cases.

Since you are making this change, I'd suggest you also update the stub
function in linux/acpi.h to return -ENODEV as well.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/