linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and parport_register

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: <20150408115010.GA11153@sudip-PC>
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 17:20:10 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <willy@...a-x.org>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] parport: return value of attach and
 parport_register_driver

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:38:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 1) We can't apply this patch on its own so this way of breaking up the
> patches doesn't work.
yes, if the first patch is reverted for any reason all the others need
to be reverted also. so then everything in one single patch?
> 
> 2) I was thinking that all the ->attach() calls would have to succeed or
> we would bail.  Having some of them succeed and some fail doesn't seem
> like it will simplify the driver code very much.  But I can also see
> your point.  Hm...
to clarify my point more here: any system might have more than one
parallel port but the module might decide to use just one. so in that
case attach will return 0 for the port that it wishes to use, for others
it will be a error code. So in parport_register_driver if we get error
codes in all the attach calls then we know that attach has definitely
failed, but atleast one 0 means one attach call has succeeded, which
will happen in case of staging/panel, net/plip...

> 
> Minor comment:  No need to preserve the error code if there are lots
> which we miss.  We may as well hard code an error code.  But that's a
> minor thing.  Does this actually simplify the driver code?  That's the
> more important thing.

i don't think this will simplify the driver code, but atleast now
parport_register_driver() will not report success when we have actually
failed. And as a result module_init will also fail which is supposed to
be the actual behviour.

regards
sudip

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
--
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/