netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: Remove IS_ERR_OR_NULL checks for knav_dma_open

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3a97a4f3-8eb8-4f0e-a5c5-44a07b0c8bd6@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:53:49 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "Jakub
 Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>, "Siddharth
 Vadapalli" <s-vadapalli@...com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: Remove IS_ERR_OR_NULL checks
 for knav_dma_open_channel



On 10/1/2025 9:58 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:58-20251001, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 05:54:16AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 16:59-20250930, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/30/2025 5:16 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>>> knav_dma_open_channel now only returns NULL on failure instead of error
>>>>> pointers. Replace IS_ERR_OR_NULL checks with simple NULL checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes in V2:
>>>>> * renewed version
>>>>> * Dropped the fixes since code refactoring was involved.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whats the justification for splitting this apart from patch 1 of 3?
>>>>
>>>> It seems like we ought to just do all this in a single patch. I don't
>>>> see the value in splitting this apart into 3 patches, unless someone
>>>> else on the list thinks it is valuable.
>>>
>>> The only reason I have done that is to ensure the patches are
>>> bisectable. at patch #1, we are still returning -EINVAL, the driver
>>> should still function when we switch the return over to NULL.
>>
>> Maybe we can simplify things and squash all three patches into one.
>> They seem inter-related.
> 
> I have no issues as the SoC driver maintainer.. just need direction on
> logistics: I will need either the network maintainers to agree to take
> it in OR with their ack, I can queue it up.
> 

I think it makes the most sense to squash everything together into one
patch.

The change looks small enough to me that I don't think it would cause
much conflict regardless of which tree it goes through. Hopefully one of
the maintainers can chime in their opinion here?


Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (237 bytes)