linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] device property: Fix documentation for *_match

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yz7QKTrKtjh3RTYg@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 15:55:05 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] device property: Fix documentation for
 *_match_string() APIs

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:45:41PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:38:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The returned value on success is an index of the matching string,
> > starting from 0. Reflect this in the documentation.

> > Fixes: 3f5c8d318785 ("device property: Add fwnode_property_match_string()")

...

> > - * Return: %0 if the property was found (success),
> > + * Return: index, starting from %0, if the property was found (success),
> >   *	   %-EINVAL if given arguments are not valid,
> >   *	   %-ENODATA if the property does not have a value,
> >   *	   %-EPROTO if the property is not an array of strings,
> 
> There are other error codes that can be returned such as -ENOMEM or what
> else may be returned by fwnode_property_read_string_array().
> 
> I might just refer to fwnode_property_read_string_array() and document here
> those specific to these functions.
> 
> Just FYI... I guess this could be a separate patch, too.

Right, I think we would rather do an incremental change since that will be
more intrusive and would not be exactly the fix (improvement?).

> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko