netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: sfp: clean up a condition

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: <20190614044320.GI1893@kadam>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:43:20 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Ruslan Babayev <ruslan@...ayev.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: sfp: clean up a condition

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:00:16PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:51:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The acpi_node_get_property_reference() doesn't return ACPI error codes,
> > it just returns regular negative kernel error codes.  This patch doesn't
> > affect run time, it's just a clean up.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> > index a991c80e6567..8a99307c1c39 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> > @@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		int ret;
> >  
> >  		ret = acpi_node_get_property_reference(fw, "i2c-bus", 0, &args);
> > -		if (ACPI_FAILURE(ret) || !is_acpi_device_node(args.fwnode)) {
> > +		if (ret || !is_acpi_device_node(args.fwnode)) {
> >  			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "missing 'i2c-bus' property\n");
> >  			return -ENODEV;
> 
> If "ret" is a Linux error code, should we print its value when reporting
> the error so we know why the failure occurred, and propagate the error
> code?

We can't propagate the error code because we might have failed because
acpi_node_get_property_reference() succeeded but it's not a device node.

regards,
dan carpenter