linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Move tag setup to new lan9303_setup

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:01:57 +0000
From:   <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
To:     <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Move tag setup to
 new lan9303_setup_tagging

> >>>> @@ -644,6 +648,10 @@ static int lan9303_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> >>>>    		return -EINVAL;
> >>>>    	}
> >>>>
> >>>> +	ret = lan9303_setup_tagging(chip);
> >>>> +	if (ret)
> >>>> +		dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to setup port tagging %d\n", ret);
> >>>> +
> >>> Still move on when error happens?
> >>>
> >> Good question. I just followed the pattern from the original function,
> >> which was not made by me. Actually I did once reflect on whether this
> >> was the correct way. Perhaps it could be argued that it is better to
> >> allow the device to come up, so the problem can be investigated?
> > Maybe depends on severity of setting?
> > BTW, lan9303_setup() still returns ZERO at the end?
> I did quick survey of the _setup functions of the other dsa drivers.
> Some return on error, some ignore errors.
> If you think so, I can make a v3 series that return on error. Otherwise
> I leave it as it is.

Unless Andrew, Vivien or Florian raises flag, I guess it will be fine as-is.

Thanks.
Woojung