linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

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: <ZdMcLAIsi6UHPUho@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:15:24 +0200
From: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Thorsten Scherer <T.Scherer@...elmann.de>,
	jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@...el.com,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:27:43AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
> > > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > @@ -51,11 +51,8 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
> > 
> > IMHO this comment could be omitted.
> 
> I like the comment (and even asked for it). Is it really only me who
> doesn't know that after pcim_iomap_regions() calling pcim_iomap_table()
> is unproblematic?

Neither did I :) (Check the v1 discussion)

Raag