linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pwm: core: Refactor pwmchip

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: <Y3Sd4BYkkjLUv5ka@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:22:56 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pwm: core: Refactor pwmchip_add() to avoid extra
 checks

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 09:24:12PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:00:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > When we already know that everything is fine there is no need
> > to use ret variable. Refactor code accordingly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> The patch is correct (i.e. doesn't change the semantic of the function).
> 
> But I think there is some more potential to clean up than it used here.
> I will send out a series that I like better than this patch.

Fine, can you attach the second patch of this series to yours v2, please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko