linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: nandsim: fix error check

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: <009a3016-3fe9-bda0-feb7-7d2cc132b091@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:56:22 +0100
From:   Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
To:     Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: nandsim: fix error check

On 11/16/2016 08:52 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 November 2016 11:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 11/16/2016 12:09 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>>> debugfs_create_dir() and debugfs_create_file() returns NULL on error or
>>> a pointer on success. They do not return the error value with ERR_PTR.
>>> So we should not check the return with IS_ERR_OR_NULL, instead we
>>> should just check for NULL.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c | 9 +++------
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c
>>> index c76287a..9b0d79a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c
>>> @@ -525,15 +525,13 @@ static int nandsim_debugfs_create(struct
>>> nandsim *dev)
>>>   {
>>>       struct nandsim_debug_info *dbg = &dev->dbg;
>>>       struct dentry *dent;
>>> -    int err;
>>> +    int err = -ENODEV;
>>
>> Why don't you just nuke the err altogether and just return -ENODEV ?
> 
> That was the first version which i made and discarded before sending. I
> will go and find it now.

Why did you discard it ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut