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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140211173446.GC27395@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:34:46 -0500
From:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To:	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] ARM: mvebu: make use of
 of_find_matching_node_and_match

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:33PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 11/02/2014 18:10, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Dear Jason Cooper,
> > 
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:53:14 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > 
> >>> -	np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, of_system_controller_table);
> >>> +	np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, of_system_controller_table,
> >>> +					     &match);
> >>>  	if (np) {
> >>> -		const struct of_device_id *match =
> >>> -		    of_match_node(of_system_controller_table, np);
> >>
> >>
> >>> -		BUG_ON(!match);
> >>
> >> Gregory, is it ok to remove this?  It was added with the original code
> >> submission for mach-mvebu.  mvebu_restart() will handle this
> >> gracefully...
> > 
> > The BUG_ON here can normally never be reached. If
> > of_find_matching_node() returns a non-NULL result, then of_match_node()
> > should also return a non-NULL result.
> > 
> > Or I'm missing something :)
> 
> No you're almost right!
> 
> The only case we can get it, would be if we were declaring something like:
> 
> static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = {
> 	{
> 		.compatible = "foo,bar-controller",
> 	},
> [...]
> 
> instead of
> 
> static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = {
> 	{
> 		.compatible = "foo,bar",
> 		.data = (void *) &bar_controller,
> 	},
> [...]
> 
> This test is very paranoid, so I agree to remove it.
> 
> 
> Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>

Ok, great!  Josh, do you want us to take the two mvebu patches through
mvebu/arm-soc?  Or would you prefer to take them?

thx,

Jason.
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ