linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ab8500-charger: Check return value of regulator

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK9yfHwA4Nnw6hKvKaVByFOwfMR84j2BtwBwYfuYHWXnXo_T0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:44:09 +0530
From:	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, anton@...msg.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ab8500-charger: Check return value of regulator_enable

On 6 September 2013 12:32, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2013, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>
>> Check the return value of regulator_enable to silence the following
>> type of warnings:
>> drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c:1390:20: warning: ignoring return value
>> of ‘regulator_enable’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result
>> [-Wunused-result]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> Compile tested.
>> Changes since v1:
>>  * converted dev_err and return to dev_warn as suggested by Lee Jones.
>> ---
>>  drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c b/drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c
>> index a4c4a10..0d355a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c
>> @@ -1387,8 +1387,14 @@ static int ab8500_charger_ac_en(struct ux500_charger *charger,
>>                * the GPADC module independant of the AB8500 chargers
>>                */
>>               if (!di->vddadc_en_ac) {
>> -                     regulator_enable(di->regu);
>> -                     di->vddadc_en_ac = true;
>> +                     ret = regulator_enable(di->regu);
>> +                     if (ret) {
>> +                             dev_warn(di->dev,
>> +                                     "Failed to enable regulator\n");
>> +                             di->vddadc_en_ac = false;
>
> Isn't di->vddadc_en_ac already false?
>
> Or you wouldn't have made it into the if().

Yes you are right. This and other similar statements are redundant.

-- 
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
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/