linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH 9/9] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Kill cmd_cache and find

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]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UrUMSf9005eCta0rf=4BaSWNGwTDsuja2pFtqauaC25Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:35:43 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH 9/9] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Kill cmd_cache and
 find_match() with fire

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:00 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> @@ -889,12 +793,6 @@ static int rpmh_probe_tcs_config(struct platform_device *pdev,
>                  */
>                 if (tcs->type == ACTIVE_TCS)
>                         continue;
> -
> -               tcs->cmd_cache = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev,
> -                                             tcs->num_tcs * ncpt, sizeof(u32),
> -                                             GFP_KERNEL);
> -               if (!tcs->cmd_cache)
> -                       return -ENOMEM;

During later code inspection I happened to notice that the "if" test
above the code I removed can also be removed.  I'll do that in v2.
The code after the v1 patch doesn't hurt, it's just silly to have the
"if (blah) continue" at the end of the loop.

I'll wait on sending a v2 until I get some testing / review feedback
on v1 or enough time passes.

-Doug