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: <87powg5el1.fsf@belgarion.home> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:02:34 +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: > On 02/01/2016 11:41 PM, 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. > > Possible if of_irq_get() returns 0 (and it will on failure!). Ah good catch, didn't know that 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) {". > > Defeating Linus' PoV as a result... ;-) Well, I'd rather face the wrath of others if I'm convinced the code is more correct. And in this case you convinced me :) -- Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists