linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] phy: renesas: rcar-gen3-usb2: fix SError happen if DEBUG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:54:18 +0000
From:   Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
CC:     "kishon@...com" <kishon@...com>,
        "wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        "geert+renesas@...der.be" <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] phy: renesas: rcar-gen3-usb2: fix SError happen if
 DEBUG_SHIRQ is enabled

> From: Vinod Koul, Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 5:46 PM
<snip>
> > > >  static int rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_init(struct phy *p)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct rcar_gen3_phy *rphy = phy_get_drvdata(p);
> > > >  	struct rcar_gen3_chan *channel = rphy->ch;
> > > >  	void __iomem *usb2_base = channel->base;
> > > >  	u32 val;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!rcar_gen3_is_any_rphy_initialized(channel) && channel->irq >= 0) {
> > > > +		INIT_WORK(&channel->work, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_work);
> > > > +		ret = request_irq(channel->irq, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_irq,
> > > > +				  IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(channel->dev), channel);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			dev_err(channel->dev, "No irq handler (%d)\n",
> > > > +				channel->irq);
> > >
> > > This could be in a single line :)
> >
> > Yes. We could be 80 over characters in a line now :)
> > I'll fix it.
> >
> > > Should we continue on error here?
> >
> > Hmm, maybe it's better if the request_irq() failed because
> > it can avoid unexpected behaviors. But, original code continued on error.
> > In this case, should I make a separated incremental patch to exit on error?
> 
> Yes that would be better :), Always, a patch per change

Thank you for the reply. I got it :)

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda