linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Return immediately from suspend if ehci

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1404092134420.7397-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<kgene.kim@...sung.com>, 'Vivek Gautam' <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Return immediately from suspend
 if ehci_suspend fails

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Jingoo Han wrote:

> > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c
> > > @@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ static int exynos_ehci_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >  	int rc;
> > >
> > >  	rc = ehci_suspend(hcd, do_wakeup);
> > > +	if (rc)
> > > +		return rc;
> > >
> > >  	if (exynos_ehci->otg)
> > >  		exynos_ehci->otg->set_host(exynos_ehci->otg, &hcd->self);
> > > @@ -221,7 +223,7 @@ static int exynos_ehci_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >
> > >  	clk_disable_unprepare(exynos_ehci->clk);
> > >
> > > -	return rc;
> > > +	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static int exynos_ehci_resume(struct device *dev)
> > 
> > The first hunk of this patch is correct, but the second hunk isn't
> > needed.  A similar remark is true for the ehci-platform patch.
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Do you mean the following?
> 
> 1st hunk
>  +	if (rc)
>  +		return rc;
> 
> 2nd hunk
>  -	return rc;
>  +	return 0;

Yes, that's what I mean.

> Currently, the 'rc' will be always 'zero'; however, I don't
> Have any objection, because the code might be  modified later.

Exactly.  We should add the new "if" statement but leave the "return 
rc" the way it is.

Alan Stern

--
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/