linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] staging: r8188eu: add error argument to read

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]

Date:   Sat, 21 Aug 2021 13:38:49 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Larry.Finger@...inger.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        straube.linux@...il.com, fmdefrancesco@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] staging: r8188eu: add error argument to
 read_macreg

On 8/21/21 2:18 AM, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 20:07 +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> Since read_macreg() calls rtw_read*() internally we should tell
>> callers about an error on the read side.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c    | 9 ++++-----
>>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/rtw_mp.h | 2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c
>> b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c
>> index 601a1fd5d4e7..6bbea1cc364a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c
>> @@ -7,20 +7,19 @@
>>  #include "../include/odm_precomp.h"
>>  #include "../include/rtl8188e_hal.h"
>>  
>> -u32 read_macreg(struct adapter *padapter, u32 addr, u32 sz)
>> +u32 read_macreg(struct adapter *padapter, u32 addr, u32 sz, int
>> *error)
> 
> Dear Pavel,
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this read_macreg function seems to be
> completely unused by the rest of the driver. Rather than changing the
> signature to do error handling, maybe it would be better to just remove
> it?
> 
> That is just my view though, would be interested to see what others
> think - perhaps it could come in handy at some point.
> 

yes, this function is unused for now, but I am aware about plans for 
this function :) If no one has plans for it, it can be removed.


With regards,
Pavel Skripkin