linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: let clk_disable() return immediately if clk is NULL or error

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: <20160414004050.GJ14441@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:40:50 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
	Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: let clk_disable() return immediately if clk is
 NULL or error

On 04/08, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 
> While your argument makes perfect sense, Many clk_disable implementations
> are already doing similar checks, for example:
> 
> arch/arm/mach-davinci/clock.c:
> 
[...]
> 
> So should we go and weed out these checks?

Yes, it would be nice to at least make the differing
implementations of the clk API consistent. Of course, we should
really put our efforts towards getting rid of the non-CCF
implementations instead so that there's less confusion overall.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project