linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/6] iio: sca3000: make stop_all

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: <6423132f-37b1-4db8-a654-437804b2f31c@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 14:50:54 +0530
From: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        David Lechner
 <dlechner@...libre.com>,
        Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
        Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        error27@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/6] iio: sca3000: make stop_all_interrupts()
 return void

Hi Andy,

On 04/02/26 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:11:58PM -0800, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> sca3000_stop_all_interrupts() is called only from the driver remove
>> path and its return value is discarded, so convert the helper to return
>> void.
>>
>> No functional change.
> 
> Yeah, as I just replied, the prerequisite for this should be move upper in the
> code where you are going to use it in the future.
> 

Sure, will do that! That would make reviewing simpler.
> ...
> 
>>   	ret = sca3000_read_data_short(st, SCA3000_REG_INT_MASK_ADDR, 1);
>>   	if (ret)
>> -		goto error_ret;
> 
>> -error_ret:
>> +		goto out_unlock;
> 
>> +out_unlock:
> 
> While this is correct change semantically, it's not needed as very soon
> the other patch drops this for good, hence leave the label name unmodified.
> 

Agree, I was doubtful on which is the preferred approach as its not 
really a return anymore. But thanks for explaining.

Regards,
Harshit