[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200415145855.GM185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:58:55 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] memremap: Check for size parameter
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:29:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 08:00:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > There is no use of memremap() to be called with size = 0.
> > Simple return NULL pointer and allow callers to drop this check.
>
> Given that this really is an error condition, maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE
> would fit here?
It appears some users are using defensive programming and rely simple on error
code. I dunno if they are really expect to have size == 0 in some (non-fatal)
cases.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists