linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: common: iblib: Changed ibrsc function type

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: <2025051025-slate-grape-37ce@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 18:44:38 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Andreatta <thomasandreatta2000@...il.com>
Cc: dpenkler@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	Thomas Andreatta <thomas.andreatta2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: common: iblib: Changed ibrsc function type

On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 05:37:59PM +0200, Thomas Andreatta wrote:
> Function ibrsc type changed from void to int.

You need to explain more here.

> Returning 0 for success.

Yes, but it can not fail:

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Andreatta <thomas.andreatta2000@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gpib/common/iblib.c       | 4 ++--
>  drivers/staging/gpib/include/gpib_proto.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/common/iblib.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/common/iblib.c
> index b297261818f2..8b4280309ae7 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/common/iblib.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/common/iblib.c
> @@ -418,12 +418,12 @@ int ibsic(struct gpib_board *board, unsigned int usec_duration)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -	/* FIXME make int */
> -void ibrsc(struct gpib_board *board, int request_control)
> +int ibrsc(struct gpib_board *board, int request_control)
>  {
>  	board->master = request_control != 0;
>  	if (board->interface->request_system_control)
>  		board->interface->request_system_control(board, request_control);
> +	return 0;

If this can not fail, and request_system_control() can not fail, why
does this function need to return anything?

And you aren't checking the return value of it either, so why change it?

On another note, it's not a good name for a global function :)

thanks,

greg k-h