linux-kernel - Re: Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

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: <20140624133611.62e4c3b7@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:36:11 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:53:45 +0100
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> I'm looking at a patch you wrote which can be foudn below at [1].  Are
> you sure it's correct to ignore i.e not return -ENOMEM from
> platform_device_add_data() in pcf50633_probe()?  I believe if
> platform_device_add_data() returns an error we should
> platform_device_put() and return immediately.  Can you tell me if you
> agree.  If you don't, would you mind explaining to me why please?

I made the change to maximise the chance of things booting up ok, but I
agree, its a pointless exercise. If we fail to add the data we should
just chuck it.

Alan
--
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/