linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] bnx2x:Fix error handling in the function bnxc2x_dbcx_set

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

Date:	Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:25:36 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	nick <xerofoify@...il.com>, Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] bnx2x:Fix error handling in the function
 bnxc2x_dbcx_set_params

> I am used to sending out one patch per each fix like this for each function.
> If you don't like me doing this I don't when sending patches for your
> subsystem(s).

I think that would be preferable.

> In addition would something like this fix your complains about not fixing error
> handling in bnx2x_dcbnl_update_applist.
> int bnx2x_dcbnl_update_applist(struct bnx2x *bp, bool delall) {
>  	int i, err = 0;
> 
>  	for (i = 0; i < DCBX_MAX_APP_PROTOCOL && err == 0; i++) {
...
> 				err = dcb_setapp(bp->dev, &app);
> +				if (err)
> +					break;

Well, either that or retain the fact there's an error and return it at the end.

--
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/