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  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 <>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <>,,
        Sebastian Reichel <>,
        LKML <>,
Subject: Re: bq2415x_charger: Use common error handling code in

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:

if failed:
  print error;

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

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

Pali Rohár

Powered by blists - more mailing lists