linux-kernel - Re: bq2415x_charger: Use common error handling code in bq2415x_timer

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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:14:33 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bq2415x_charger: Use common error handling code in
 bq2415x_timer_work()

On Thursday 09 November 2017 14:04:19 SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Better fix would be to display separate messages; user is probably
> > interested in what failed...
> 
> Which information (or wording) would you find more appropriate
> at these places?

Hi! Basically dropping your patch and instead of the "Unknown error"
return to user reason why BQ2415X_BOOST_MODE_STATUS or
BQ2415X_FAULT_STATUS commands failed. Or at least instead of the
"Unknown error" write "Unknown error during BQ2415X_FAULT_STATUS".

Basically I do not see any value in your patch. Current coding style
pattern in that function is:

do_something;
if failed:
  print error;
  return;

And your patch just changed some, but not *all* parts of code to:

do_something;
if failed:
  goto end_of_function

If you are changing coding style, I would really suggest to change it on
all places to let it consistent. Because your change introduces just
inconsistency.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com