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

Message-ID: <20140624141914.GP13803@lee--X1>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:19:14 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Alan, can you revisit a patch you authored please?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> 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.

Thanks Alan, I'll get a patch out shortly.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/