netdev - Re: [patch] net: moxa: fix an error code

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:21:29 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@...il.com>,
	Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>,
	françois romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] net: moxa: fix an error code

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Did you find more of these?
> 
> it doesn't matter much either way, but if you do multiple such patches,

One or two.  I already sent the fixes.  I think it was applied.

> I'd suggest using a single PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() instead of IS_ERR()+PTR_ERR().
> 
> I have found a couple of drivers in which that leads to better object
> code, and avoids a warning about a possibly uninitialized variable
> when the function gets inlined into another one (which won't happen
> for this driver).

Huh?  I sent one where I could have done that but I deliberately didn't
because I wanted the uninitialized warning if I made a mistake.  It
sounds like you're working around a GCC bug...

regards,
dan carpenter