linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq/msi, platform-msi: Adjust return value of msi_domain_prepare

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: <87leh7lgyg.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 09:44:39 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...il.com>
Cc:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq/msi, platform-msi: Adjust return value of
 msi_domain_prepare_irqs()

On Sun, May 28 2023 at 11:42, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:03 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 27 2023 at 13:46, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> > After:
>> > = 0: Success;
>> >> 0: The modified nvec;
>> > < 0: Error code.
>>
>> This explains what the patch does, but provides zero justification for
>> this nor any analysis why this is correct for the existing use cases.
> I checked all msi_prepare() callbacks and none of them return positive
> values now, so I think it is correct.

Still you failed to tell so in the changelog. It's not helpful if you
think it is correct. The point is that you have to make clear why it
_IS_ correct.

Thanks,

        tglx