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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:30:31 +0000 From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> Cc: myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, sameo@...ux.intel.com, lee.jones@...aro.org, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] extcon: arizona: Eliminate dead error handling code On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:15:29AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi CHarles, > > On 11/08/2013 10:19 PM, Charles Keepax wrote: > > As a small disclaimer I would personally prefer to not merge this patch. > > I have added it based on previous code review of the other patches in > > this chain. > > > > arizona_hpdet_do_id currently can only return 0 or -EAGAIN making the > > else if clause handling error codes redundant, this patch removes this > > clause. > > > > Whilst this clause is not currently hit removing it makes the code > > fragile. It will not be obvious whilst editing arizona_hpdet_do_id that > > you shouldn't add a return value other than 0 or -EAGAIN. > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> > > --- > > drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c > > index 0d70bf6..2313b1e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c > > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c > > @@ -476,6 +476,9 @@ static int arizona_hpdet_read(struct arizona_extcon_info *info) > > return val; > > } > > > > +/* This function should only return 0 or -EAGAIN, if other return values are > > + * added additional handling should be added in arizona_hpdet_irq. > > + */ > > As Lee Jones commented, you should modify this comment of arizona_hpdet_do_id() and add > the description of return value. Because arizoa_hpdet_do_id() has different meaning > between -EAGAIN and other minus value. I take it you are still very keen on applying a patch for this dead code elimination? I really do feel it would be better to leave this part of the code as it currently is, the extra safety clearly outweights the cost of a redundant else if. Thanks, Charles -- 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