linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: fwnode: fix fwnode_irq_get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y1fFWPmsC3Y5KeM6@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 14:15:36 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: fwnode: fix fwnode_irq_get_byname()

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:00:07AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 10/25/22 12:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:50:59AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

...

> >> +	ret = fwnode_irq_get(fwnode, index);
> > 
> >> +
> > 
> > Redundant blank line and better to use traditional pattern: >
> >> +	if (!ret)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	return ret;
> > 
> > 	if (ret)
> > 		return ret;
> > 
> > 	/* We treat mapping errors as invalid case */
> > 	return -EINVAL;
> > 
> >>   }
> 
> I like the added comment - but in this case I don't prefer the 
> "traditional pattern" you suggest. We do check for a very special error 
> case indicated by ret 0.
> 
> if (!ret)
> 	return -EINVAL;
> 
> makes it obvious the zero is special error.

I don't think so. It makes ! easily to went through the cracks. If you want an
explicit, use ' == 0' and add a comment.

> if (ret)
> 	return ret;
> 
> the traditional pattern makes this look like traditional error return - 
> which it is not. The comment you added is nice though. It could be just 
> before the check for
> 
> if (!ret).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko