netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 2/2] net: phy: micrel: Fix warn: passing zero to PTR

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:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:11:39 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com
Cc:     hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        richardcochran@...il.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 2/2] net: phy: micrel: Fix warn: passing zero
 to PTR_ERR

> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> > content is safe
> > 
> > > > > -     if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK) ||
> > > > > -         !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETWORK_PHY_TIMESTAMPING))
> > > > > -             return 0;
> > > > > -
> > > >
> > > > Why are you removing this ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I got review comment from Richard in v2 as below, making it as consistent
> > by checking ptp_clock. So removed it in next revision.
> > >
> > > " > static int lan8814_ptp_probe_once(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > > > {
> > > >         struct lan8814_shared_priv *shared = phydev->shared->priv;
> > > >
> > > >         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK) ||
> > > >             !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETWORK_PHY_TIMESTAMPING))
> > > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > It is weird to use macros here, but not before calling ptp_clock_register.
> > > Make it consistent by checking shared->ptp_clock instead.
> > > That is also better form."
> > 
> > O.K. If Richard said this fine.

Since Richard wants this removed, i would just remove it. The object
code saving is probably not much.

     Andrew