linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: smc91x: propagate irq return code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87powg5el1.fsf@belgarion.home>
Date:	Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:02:34 +0100
From:	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc91x: propagate irq return code

Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> writes:

> On 02/01/2016 11:41 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>
>>>> The smc91x driver doesn't honor the probe deferral mechanism when the
>>>> interrupt source is not yet available, such as one provided by a gpio
>>>> controller not probed.
>
>>>     What if 'ndev->irq' does equal 0?
>
>> That's not possible AFAIR.
>
>    Possible if of_irq_get() returns 0 (and it will on failure!).
Ah good catch, didn't know that one.

>> And yet, that test now looks weird to me. I think I'll respin the patch with a
>> "if (ndev->irq < 0) {" instead of the "if (ndev->irq <= 0) {".
>
>    Defeating Linus' PoV as a result... ;-)
Well, I'd rather face the wrath of others if I'm convinced the code is more
correct. And in this case you convinced me :)

-- 
Robert