linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] ALSA: pcsp: Use common error handling code in snd_card_pcsp

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

Message-ID: <139363f6-e059-defb-357e-f18645ba9768@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:36:35 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] ALSA: pcsp: Use common error handling code in
 snd_card_pcsp_probe()

>> I got the impression that the functions which are called at the updated places
>> by the function “snd_card_pcsp_probe” indicate a successful execution
>> only by zero so far.
> 
> You have the impression, great.

This aspect is also a general programming interface issue for some functions.


> And what's the reason to drop the negative check?

* I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”.

* It is also a small source code reduction.


> It's not clearer, not better readable.

It seems that we have got different development opinions this time.


> And, the worst part is that you've done it silently even without
> mentioning in the change log at all.  That's really bad.
> Just don't do it.

I found it not relevant enough for the commit message.


> For example, the control API functions may return the positive number
> when the value got changed, 0 for else, and a negative number for the
> error.  The functions returning some numbers may return positive
> numbers, of course.

Did I touch any specific function calls which belong to this
programming interface category?

Regards,
Markus