linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpu/drm/bridge/sii9234: Use common error handling code in sii9234

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:45:27 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Maciej Purski <m.purski@...sung.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpu/drm/bridge/sii9234: Use common error handling code in
 sii9234_writebm()

>>  	ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, offset, value);
>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>> -		dev_err(ctx->dev, "writebm: %4s[0x%02x] <- 0x%02x\n",
>> -			sii9234_client_name[id], offset, value);
>> -		ctx->i2c_error = ret;
>> -	}
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		return 0;
> 
> Ugh.  No.  Don't do success handling on the last if statement.

I find my approach useful in this case.


> Also while I personally prefer testing for non-zero,

I got used to this checking style to some degree.


> the ALSA people got annoyed at you for changing tests for < 0

It seems that involved software developers have got special preferences there.


> but you're doing it again.

I dared to propose such an adjustment once more.
Would you like discuss corresponding reasons any further?


> And it introduces a bug,

Unfortunately, a hiccup in my software development attention …


> although I see now that you fixed it in v2.

Thanks that you noticed also this small update.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10021767/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<2ecf0bb7-7129-40e4-cefc-0bc2d0f7ee8b@...rs.sourceforge.net>


> I can't get excited about these sort of risky low value patches.

I try again to point special software improvement opportunities out.


>> +report_failure:
>> +	dev_err(ctx->dev, "writebm: %4s[0x%02x] <- 0x%02x\n",
>> +		sii9234_client_name[id], offset, value);
>> +	ctx->i2c_error = ret;
>>  	return ret;
>>  }

How do you think about to move this source code to the end of
this function implementation?

Regards,
Markus