netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: qcom/emac: don't try to claim clocks on ACPI systems

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]

Message-ID: <e4666d2c-1690-0513-b2e2-57733f04a69c@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:02:15 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        alokc@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qcom/emac: don't try to claim clocks on ACPI systems

On 12/13/2016 01:54 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 03:46 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Is there a reason why the check is not moved down inwo
>> emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init functions? Do you anticipate other
>> ACPI-related changes in the future that would warrant having this check
>> moved at a higher level?
> 
> No, this is the last ACPI-related change that I expect.  I could move
> the check into those functions, but I don't see how that's any different
> than what I'm doing now.  My way avoids calling a function altogether,
> your way calls into a function only to have it return immediately.
> 
> But I don't have any strong feelings either way.  I will change it if
> you want me to.

No strong feelings either, it just seems easier and safer to move the
check down in the function and make it return success rather than
potentially affecting the error path within the caller of
emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init here.
-- 
Florian