netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] net: lan966x: Do not check 0 for platform_get_irq

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: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:32:48 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Zhu Wang <wangzhu9@...wei.com>
Cc: horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] net: lan966x: Do not check 0 for
 platform_get_irq_byname()

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 04:29:00PM +0800, Zhu Wang wrote:
> Since platform_get_irq_byname() never returned zero, so it need not to
> check whether it returned zero, it returned -EINVAL or -ENXIO when
> failed, so we replace the return error code with the result it returned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhu Wang <wangzhu9@...wei.com>

For non-bugfix Networking patches, it is appropriate to
designate the target tree as 'net-next' rather than '-next'.
(For bug fixes 'net' is appropriate).

Link: https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html

Otherwise, this looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>