[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01d03e10-b832-415c-9dfd-61be31b49b1e@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:41:33 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Crawford <frank@...wford.emu.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 29/33] hwmon: (it87) Check the it87_lock() return
value
On 2/6/25 15:34, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/6/25 2:51 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 2/6/25 09:51, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
>>> index e233aafa8856..8e3935089fca 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
>>> @@ -3593,7 +3593,9 @@ static int it87_resume(struct device *dev)
>>> it87_resume_sio(pdev);
>>> - it87_lock(data);
>>> + int err = it87_lock(data);
>>
>> I am not going to accept patches with inline variable declarations
>> if the patch is fixing an earlier problem, sorry. This only results
>> in unnecessary backport failures.
>
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Is this perhaps how you want me to format this patch?
>
Yes, that would be ok.
Guenter
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> index e233aafa8856..5cfb98a0512f 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
> @@ -3590,10 +3590,13 @@ static int it87_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> struct it87_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int err;
>
> it87_resume_sio(pdev);
>
> - it87_lock(data);
> + err = it87_lock(data);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
>
> it87_check_pwm(dev);
> it87_check_limit_regs(data);
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists