Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1380546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-16 15:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-16 15:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-04-16 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> - 2016-04-16 15:50 +0200
| From | Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 15:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks |
| Message-ID | <roxZn-3zW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Sat 2016-04-16 13:50:03, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > It is entirely possible for of_count_phandle_wit_args to > return a -ve error return value so we need to check for this > otherwise we end up allocating a negative number of clk objects. > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c > index 0e64a1b..3657ac1 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c > @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ int of_pm_clk_add_clks(struct device *dev) > > count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "clocks", > "#clock-cells"); > - if (count == 0) > + if (count <= 0) > return -ENODEV; Would it make sense to propagate the error value? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <royLL-4bu-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1380546 |
On 16/04/16 13:52, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2016-04-16 13:50:03, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> >> It is entirely possible for of_count_phandle_wit_args to >> return a -ve error return value so we need to check for this >> otherwise we end up allocating a negative number of clk objects. >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> index 0e64a1b..3657ac1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ int of_pm_clk_add_clks(struct device *dev) >> >> count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "clocks", >> "#clock-cells"); >> - if (count == 0) >> + if (count <= 0) >> return -ENODEV; > > Would it make sense to propagate the error value? I don't think it will contribute much more than the current return. > > Pavel >
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web