linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] gpib: cec: 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: <2026011647-enigmatic-earwig-5db5@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:50:18 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dave Penkler <dpenkler@...il.com>
Cc: Dominik Karol Pi??tkowski <dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com>,
	Michael Rubin <matchstick@...erthere.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] gpib: cec: Unify *allocate_private

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 05:29:44PM +0100, Dave Penkler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 07:08:56PM +0000, Dominik Karol Pi??tkowski 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 Pi??tkowski <dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpib/cec/cec_gpib.c | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpib/cec/cec_gpib.c b/drivers/gpib/cec/cec_gpib.c
> > index dbf9b95baabc..6d04becd1058 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpib/cec/cec_gpib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpib/cec/cec_gpib.c
> > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static int cec_allocate_private(struct gpib_board *board)
> >  
> >  	board->private_data = kmalloc(sizeof(struct cec_priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Maybe you could change all the remaining kmalloc/memset pairs to kzalloc at the same time ?

That's a different logical change, and should be in a different patch,
just to ensure that it is easier to review and roll back if something
went wrong.

thanks,

greg k-h