linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq

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: <53D3DE22.1010305@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:58:10 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Nick Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>,
	Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to
 return -ENXIO on failures"

On 07/26/2014 08:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning
>>> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even
>>> build tested.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>>
>>
>> Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-(
>>
>> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>
> I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo)
> because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my
> reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html
>
> W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc
> I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the
> value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed.
> I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework
> itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)?
>
> W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same.
> I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero
> value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it
> incarnation.
>
In my understanding, anything not equal to 0 means that an interrupt
is pending, not that there was an error. Maybe my understanding is wrong.

Either case, I don't really care.

Guenter

--
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/