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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 20:40:00 -0400 From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk> CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nsekhar@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, john.ogness@...utronix.de, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dma: add __must_check annotation for dmaengine_pause() On 08/07/2015 04:00 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > In 8250-omap I learned it the hard way that ignoring the return code > of dmaengine_pause() might be bad because the underlying DMA driver > might not support the function at all and so not doing what one is > expecting. > This patch adds the __must_check annotation as suggested by Russell King. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> > --- > include/linux/dmaengine.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h > index 8ad9a4e839f6..4eac4716bded 100644 > --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h > +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h > @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static inline int dmaengine_terminate_all(struct dma_chan *chan) > return -ENOSYS; > } > > -static inline int dmaengine_pause(struct dma_chan *chan) > +static inline int __must_check dmaengine_pause(struct dma_chan *chan) > { > if (chan->device->device_pause) > return chan->device->device_pause(chan); > Not that this is your responsibility, Sebastian, but considering there are fewer than 20 users of dmaengine_pause() in the entire tree, we should add WARN_ON_ONCE() around those uses with this patch to avoid a bunch needless one-off "fixes". Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists