linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: r8188eu: don't set

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: <20220411183918.4mw5x6tatslii7mg@viti.kaiser.cx>
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:39:18 +0200
From:   Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: r8188eu: don't set _SUCCESS again

Thus wrote Dan Carpenter (dan.carpenter@...cle.com):

> On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 05:15:51PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > ret is initialized to _SUCCESS, there's no need to set it again.

> > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>

> I liked the original code better.  Otherwise you wonder, is it
> intentional to return success on this path. 

You're right. The original code is easier to understand. It's not
obvious that this check should return _SUCCESS and the remaining ones
return _FAIL.

Greg, could you drop this patch or should I resend the series without
this patch?

Thanks,
Martin