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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:55:19 +0000
From:   <Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com>
To:     <andrew@...n.ch>
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

Hi Andrew,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:42 PM
> To: Divya Koppera - I30481 <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
> <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
> 
> > > 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.

Okay, then I'll resend the patch.

> 
>      Andrew