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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:04:50 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> To: kishore.p@...hveda.org, eric@...olt.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org Cc: Suniel Mahesh <sunil.m@...hveda.org>, karthik@...hveda.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, shrikant.maurya@...hveda.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: Prefer BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG. Hi Kishore, > kishore.p@...hveda.org hat am 23. Dezember 2017 um 16:06 geschrieben: > > > From: Kishore KP <kishore.p@...hveda.org> > > Use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG. > Pointed out by Coccinelle. > > Signed-off-by: Kishore KP <kishore.p@...hveda.org> > Signed-off-by: Suniel Mahesh <sunil.m@...hveda.org> > --- > Note: > - Patch was compile tested and built(ARCH=arm) on linux-next > (latest). > - No build issues reported. > --- > drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c > index 315b49c..7116f61 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c > @@ -224,8 +224,7 @@ int vchiq_platform_init(struct platform_device *pdev, VCHIQ_STATE_T *state) > > platform_state = (struct vchiq_2835_state *)state->platform_state; > > - if (!platform_state->inited) > - BUG(); > + BUG_ON(!platform_state->inited); > vchiq isn't critical so i prefer WARN_ON_ONCE() here. Thanks Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists