linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] gpib: agilent_82350b: Unify *allocate

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: <2026011649-glitter-unawake-3f50@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:36:36 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dominik Karol Piątkowski <dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com>
Cc: Dave Penkler <dpenkler@...il.com>,
	Michael Rubin <matchstick@...erthere.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] gpib: agilent_82350b: Unify *allocate_private

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 07:08:43PM +0000, Dominik Karol Piątkowski wrote:
> Return values for *allocate_private functions as well as calling code in
> gpib driver are all over the place. Unify them by returning -errno if
> something fails, zero otherwise. Use the returned value as early return
> value in case of error.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Karol Piątkowski <dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> index 01a5bb43cd2d..f5f102863e47 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> @@ -599,8 +599,9 @@ static int agilent_82350b_generic_attach(struct gpib_board *board,
>  
>  	board->status = 0;
>  
> -	if (agilent_82350b_allocate_private(board))
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> +	retval = agilent_82350b_allocate_private(board);
> +	if (retval < 0)
> +		return retval;

This should be:
	if (retval)
		return retval;

right?

And the function only returns either 0 or -ENOMEM, so your changelog
text is not correct.

thanks,

greg k-h