linux-kernel - Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:46:42 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: Get rid of never false
 gpio_is_valid() calls

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:06:05PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the cases when gpio_is_valid() is called with unsigned parameter
> > the result is always true in the GPIO library code, hence the check
> > for false won't ever be true. Get rid of such calls.
> >
> > While at it, move GPIO device base to be unsigned to clearly show
> > it won't ever be negative. This requires a new definition for the
> > maximum GPIO number in the system.

> > ---
> 
> It looks like a risky change that late in the release cycle. I want to
> avoid some CI problems at rc6. Please resend it once v6.9-rc1 is
> tagged.

Not sure why resend, but I missed that somehow. Can you consider applying it?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko