linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] PM / OPP: fix warning in of_free_opp

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: <CAKohpok+_wee9HwvQqpn7HRj_9zH3EifNn0MX_1yXx=WJuK0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:58:17 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] PM / OPP: fix warning in of_free_opp_table

On 17 December 2014 at 04:39, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org> wrote:
> Not having OPP defined for a device is not a crime, we should not splat
> warning in this case. Also, it seems that we are ready to accept invalid
> dev (find_device_opp will return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) then) so let's not
> crash in dev_name() in such case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/opp.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> index b78c14d..413c7fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> @@ -799,9 +799,15 @@ void of_free_opp_table(struct device *dev)
>
>         /* Check for existing list for 'dev' */
>         dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
> -       if (WARN(IS_ERR(dev_opp), "%s: dev_opp: %ld\n", dev_name(dev),
> -                PTR_ERR(dev_opp)))
> +       if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) {
> +               int error = PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> +               if (error != -ENODEV)
> +                       WARN(1, "%s: dev_opp: %ld\n",
> +                            IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev) ?
> +                                       "Invalid device" : dev_name(dev),
> +                            error);
>                 return;

What about this:

        if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) {
                int error = PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
                WARN(error != -ENODEV, "%s: dev_opp: %ld\n",
                     IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev) ?  "Invalid device" : dev_name(dev),
                     error);
                return;
        }

We can get rid of the extra indentation level and an extra comparison check.

Otherwise:

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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/