linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] powerpc/rtas: Rename rtas_error_rc to rtas_generic

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: <87o7j5zwam.fsf@li-e15d104c-2135-11b2-a85c-d7ef17e56be6.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 07:29:53 -0500
From:   Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, mahesh@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] powerpc/rtas: Rename rtas_error_rc to
 rtas_generic_errno

Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> writes:

> Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>> On 2023-08-15 13:52:14 Tue, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> ...
>>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>>> > index 3abe15ac79db1..5572a0a2f6e18 100644
>>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>>> > @@ -202,7 +202,9 @@ typedef struct {
>>> >  #define RTAS_USER_REGION_SIZE (64 * 1024)
>>> >  
>>> >  /* RTAS return status codes */
>>> > -#define RTAS_BUSY		-2    /* RTAS Busy */
>>> > +#define RTAS_HARDWARE_ERROR	(-1)  /* Hardware Error */
>>> > +#define RTAS_BUSY		(-2)  /* RTAS Busy */
>>> 
>>> Are the brackets necessary?
>>
>> During v5 changset I received offline review comment to add brackets,
>> hence continued here as well. I can take it away if Nathan is fine with
>> it.
>
> OK. I can't think of a context where the brackets are useful, but I'm
> probably just not thinking hard enough. I don't really mind adding them,
> I was just curious what the justification for them was.

It was my (mistaken) suggestion -- they're not needed.