[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o742wn20.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 17:18:31 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
frederic@...nel.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, mbenes@...e.cz, jstultz@...gle.com,
andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 1/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call
clock_settime()
On Sat, Sep 14 2024 at 16:23, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 06:06:24PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
>> checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
>> ptp->info->settime64().
>>
>> As the man mannul of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
>> tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it shuld return EINVAL,
>
> nit: should
>
> Flagged by checkpatch.pl --codespell
... man mannul
Flagged by my taste sensors.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists