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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <s5hwp5v7i9h.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:07:54 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, 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()

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:03:00 +0200,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> * I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”.
> > 
> > Can't agree.
> 
> How do you think about to reduce the probability that positive return values
> will accidentally be interpreted as a successful function execution.

It's not zero.

> > And I have no interest to continue bike-shedding, sorry.
> 
> I do not like that you prefer to put this technical detail into such
> a communication category.
> 
> 
> > You can't convince me regarding this.
> 
> Would you still like to integrate the proposed refactoring with the use
> of previous failure predicates then?

That's fine.

But, please don't forget what others already mentioned.
For example, Joe Perches suggested to put a blank line before the
label for your patches.  But you completely ignored it and did the
same again.


thanks,

Takashi