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: <55920694-04e2-480f-a67c-c0dc1604a4b8@web.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 13:12:12 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
 Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [1/3] PCI: j721e: Propagate dev_err_probe return value

>>>> I propose to take another source code transformation approach better into account.
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17.1/source/drivers/base/core.c#L5031-L5075
>>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17.1/source/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c#L444-L636
>>>>
>>>>         ret = dev_err_probe(dev, cdns_pcie_init_phy(dev, cdns_pcie), "Failed to init phy\n");
>>>>         if (ret)
>>>>                 goto err_get_sync;
>>>>
>>> No, the correct code ensures that dev_err_probe() is only called when
>>> an actual error
>>> has occurred, providing a clear and accurate log entry. …
>>
>> Where do you see undesirable technical differences?
> 
> The primary issue I wanted to confirm was the function execution order.

The desired control flow can be clarified in some ways.


> since cdns_pcie_init_phy within dev_err_probe function

One function should be executed before its return value will be directly passed
to a subsequent function call, shouldn't it?


> If other developers agree with the approach, I will modify this in a
> separate patch

There might be special coding style preferences involved (for a while).

Regards,
Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ