[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VevGHnZKJvsdJ6QpWbHdhWP0VW0G71QLqRDvgk8MFeNUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:35:07 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com>
Cc: lee@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, chiaen_wu@...htek.com,
cy_huang@...htek.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: mt6370: Add the out-of-bound check to prevent the
null pointer
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:58 PM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com> wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> 於 2022年10月21日 週五 下午5:14寫道:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> 於 2022年10月21日 週五 下午4:34寫道:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 5:17 AM cy_huang <u0084500@...il.com> wrote:
...
> > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#backtraces-in-commit-messages
> >
> > Have you had a chance to read this section of the document?
> >
> OK, get it.
> Is the below text enough to express this problem?
It is you who decides, because I don't know what exact problem this
will represent.
> Ex. Testing as below (mt6370 register range from 0 to 0x1ff)
> rg_bound_show()
> regmap_raw_read(regmap, 0x200, &val, sizeof(val));
> pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
For example, why is this line here?
> pc : i2c_smbus_xfer+0x58/0x120
> lr : i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data+0x74/0xc0
> Call trace:
> i2c_smbus_xfer+0x58/0x120
> i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data+0x74/0xc0
> mt6370_regmap_read+0x40/0x60
> _regmap_raw_read+0xe4/0x278
> regmap_raw_read+0xec/0x240
> rg_bound_show+0xb0/0x120
The rule of thumb is that it's okay to shrink to ~4-5 lines (in most cases).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists