linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 15/35] i2c/busses: Tidy Success/Failure checks

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]

Message-ID: <20200717171108.6e9f1b16@endymion>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:11:08 +0200
From:   Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:     "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com>
Cc:     helgaas@...nel.org, bjorn@...gaas.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/35] i2c/busses: Tidy Success/Failure checks

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:22:27 +0200, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
> Signed-off-by: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com>
> ---
> This patch depends on PATCH 15/35

Not possible, as this *is* patch 15/35. Not really worth mentioning
anyway, as it is expected that patches in a given series may depend on
any earlier patch in the same series.

> 
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ali15x3.c |  5 ++---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nforce2.c |  3 +--
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sis5595.c | 15 +++++----------
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ali15x3.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ali15x3.c
> index 359ee3e0864a..c9e779cc184e 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ali15x3.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ali15x3.c
> @@ -167,11 +167,10 @@ static int ali15x3_setup(struct pci_dev *ALI15X3_dev)
>  	if(force_addr) {
>  		dev_info(&ALI15X3_dev->dev, "forcing ISA address 0x%04X\n",
>  			ali15x3_smba);
> -		if (0 != pci_write_config_word(ALI15X3_dev,
> -								SMBBA,
> +		if (pci_write_config_word(ALI15X3_dev, SMBBA,
>  								ali15x3_smba))
>  			goto error;

You can't possibly leave the code with such a ugly alignment and run
away. The whole point of tidying patches it to have more readable code
in the end, right?

> -		if (0 != pci_read_config_word(ALI15X3_dev,
> +		if (pci_read_config_word(ALI15X3_dev,
>  								SMBBA, &a))
>  			goto error;
>  		if ((a & ~(ALI15X3_SMB_IOSIZE - 1)) != ali15x3_smba) {
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nforce2.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nforce2.c
> index 385f4f446f36..54d2985b7aaf 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nforce2.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nforce2.c
> @@ -327,8 +327,7 @@ static int nforce2_probe_smb(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, int alt_reg,
>  		/* Older incarnations of the device used non-standard BARs */
>  		u16 iobase;
>  
> -		if (pci_read_config_word(dev, alt_reg, &iobase)
> -		    != 0) {
> +		if (pci_read_config_word(dev, alt_reg, &iobase)) {
>  			dev_err(&dev->dev, "Error reading PCI config for %s\n",
>  				name);
>  			return -EIO;
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sis5595.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sis5595.c
> index fbe3ee31eae3..b016f48519d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sis5595.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sis5595.c
> @@ -175,11 +175,9 @@ static int sis5595_setup(struct pci_dev *SIS5595_dev)
>  
>  	if (force_addr) {
>  		dev_info(&SIS5595_dev->dev, "forcing ISA address 0x%04X\n", sis5595_base);
> -		if (pci_write_config_word(SIS5595_dev, ACPI_BASE, sis5595_base)
> -		    != 0)
> +		if (pci_write_config_word(SIS5595_dev, ACPI_BASE, sis5595_base))
>  			goto error;
> -		if (pci_read_config_word(SIS5595_dev, ACPI_BASE, &a)
> -		    != 0)
> +		if (pci_read_config_word(SIS5595_dev, ACPI_BASE, &a))
>  			goto error;
>  		if ((a & ~(SIS5595_EXTENT - 1)) != sis5595_base) {
>  			/* doesn't work for some chips! */
> @@ -188,16 +186,13 @@ static int sis5595_setup(struct pci_dev *SIS5595_dev)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (pci_read_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, &val)
> -	    != 0)
> +	if (pci_read_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, &val))
>  		goto error;
>  	if ((val & 0x80) == 0) {
>  		dev_info(&SIS5595_dev->dev, "enabling ACPI\n");
> -		if (pci_write_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, val | 0x80)
> -		    != 0)
> +		if (pci_write_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, val | 0x80))
>  			goto error;
> -		if (pci_read_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, &val)
> -		    != 0)
> +		if (pci_read_config_byte(SIS5595_dev, SIS5595_ENABLE_REG, &val))
>  			goto error;
>  		if ((val & 0x80) == 0) {
>  			/* doesn't work for some chips? */

Overall I'd be happy to have a more consistent style for checking
errors on PCI config registers access, so this seems to be going into
the right direction.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support