linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] sata_fsl: fix warning in remove_proc_entry when rmmod sata

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, 20 Nov 2021 12:51:24 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        tj@...nel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     yebin10@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] sata_fsl: fix warning in remove_proc_entry when
 rmmod sata_fsl

On 20.11.2021 9:08, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 11/20/21 00:43, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>>> index 30759fd1c3a2..011daac4a14e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>>> @@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static int sata_fsl_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>>>    	host_priv->ssr_base = ssr_base;
>>>    	host_priv->csr_base = csr_base;
>>>    
>>> -	irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0);
>>> +	irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0);
>>>    	if (!irq) {
>>
>> 	if (irq < 0) {
>>
>>      platform_get_irq() returns negative error codes, not 0 on failure.
> 
> Sergei,
> 
> By the way, the kdoc comment for platform_get_irq() says:
> 
> "Return: non-zero IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure."
> 
> But irq	0 is valid, isn't it ? So shouldn't this be changed to something
> like:
> 
> "Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure."

    No, it's not valid (the current code WARN()s about it) and won't be 
returned anymore after my patch [1] gets applied.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285

MBR, Sergei