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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 25 May 2008 11:59:36 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <>
To:	Marin Mitov <>
Subject: Re: pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() question

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:43:47 +0300
Marin Mitov <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> In the file: Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt is written:
> pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() will always be able to set the same or a
> smaller mask as pci_set_dma_mask(). However for the rare case that a
> device driver only uses consistent allocations, one would have to
> check the return value from pci_set_consistent_dma_mask().
> grep-ing drivers/net/* shows that in many drivers 
> the return value of pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() is checked
> in the path where pci_set_dma_mask() was already successfull.
> Sure, this is during driver's initiallysation, so it is not time
> critical.
> My question: Is it worth to remove the unnecessary checks?
> I could prepare patches if you find it worthfull.

I think it would actually be harmful. Checking for errors even if they
shouldn't happen for things like this makes drivers better! If something
weird is going on it gets detected earlier... IN general, defensive
programming makes a lot of sense.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists