netdev - Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:12:33 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in
 mwifiex_sdio_of()

Hello Kalle,

On 09/03/2016 12:35 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com> wrote:
>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
> 
> What's the conclusion with this patch? Should I drop it or take it?
> 
> (The discussion is available from the patchwork link in the signature.)
> 

My understanding is that Arend agrees with the patch and that the question
raised was caused by looking at an older kernel version. IOW, the patch is
OK and should be picked.

I'm adding Arend to cc, so can comment in case I misunderstood him though.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America