linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/22] thunderbolt: Log warning if adding switch fails

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:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:48:41 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
        Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/22] thunderbolt: Log warning if adding switch fails

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:18:04PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:38:11PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > If we fail to add a switch for some reason log a warning with the error
> > code. This is useful for debugging.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thunderbolt/tb.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb.c
> > index 1f7a9e1cc09c..541295be9bfc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static void tb_scan_port(struct tb_port *port)
> >  	struct tb_cm *tcm = tb_priv(port->sw->tb);
> >  	struct tb_port *upstream_port;
> >  	struct tb_switch *sw;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	if (tb_is_upstream_port(port))
> >  		return;
> > @@ -203,7 +204,9 @@ static void tb_scan_port(struct tb_port *port)
> >  	if (!tcm->hotplug_active)
> >  		dev_set_uevent_suppress(&sw->dev, true);
> >  
> > -	if (tb_switch_add(sw)) {
> > +	ret = tb_switch_add(sw);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		dev_warn(&sw->dev, "failed to register switch: %d\n", ret);
> 
> Shouldn't tb_switch_add() do the error reporting instead?  That way it
> makes it easier to call functions and not always have to print failure
> messages :)

Yes, that's better - I'll move it there.