linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] staging: vchiq: Refactor vchiq cdev code

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: <20210621142226.GA186979@ojas>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 19:52:26 +0530
From:   Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin98@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     nsaenz@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        stefan.wahren@...e.com, arnd@...db.de, phil@...pberrypi.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] staging: vchiq: Refactor vchiq cdev code

Hello Dan,

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:21:32AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 06:25:46PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> >  	vchiq_debugfs_init();
> >  
> >  	vchiq_log_info(vchiq_arm_log_level,
> > -		"vchiq: initialised - version %d (min %d), device %d.%d",
> > -		VCHIQ_VERSION, VCHIQ_VERSION_MIN,
> > -		MAJOR(vchiq_devid), MINOR(vchiq_devid));
> > +		       "vchiq: platform initialised - version %d (min %d)",
> > +		       VCHIQ_VERSION, VCHIQ_VERSION_MIN);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We don't handle error here since the function handles
> > +	 * cleanup in cases of failure. Further, we can proceed
> > +	 * even if this function fails.
> > +	 */
> > +	vchiq_register_chrdev(&pdev->dev);
> 
> I feel like ignoring errors and just continuing seems helpful, but it's
> actually doing the users a disservice.  If it's an error during, boot
> that's different, in that case it's better to get some kind of minimally
> useful boot so the user can debug the problem.  But if the error isn't
> going to prevent the system from booting then it's better to just return
> an error so they can fix the problem and try again.
Got it, I'll fix this in the next revision.

Thank you,
Ojaswin

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>