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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87twls5fkk.fsf@belgarion.home> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:41:15 +0100 From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr> To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc91x: propagate irq return code Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> writes: > Hello. > > On 2/1/2016 1:46 AM, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> The smc91x driver doesn't honor the probe deferral mechanism when the >> interrupt source is not yet available, such as one provided by a gpio >> controller not probed. > What if 'ndev->irq' does equal 0? That's not possible AFAIR. There was a discussion where Linus had stated that the irq is a cookie, and a 0 value is "no interrupt", expcepting for the single case of a PC and its timer interrupt. As we're not in that case, and up to my understanding, platform_get_irq() cannot return a 0 value, only a strictly negative or positive one. And yet, that test now looks weird to me. I think I'll respin the patch with a "if (ndev->irq < 0) {" instead of the "if (ndev->irq <= 0) {". Cheers. -- Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists