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

Message-ID: <20251001165808.lnatvc224dpewpe7@unscathed>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:58:08 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        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 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.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
https://ti.com/opensource