| Message ID | 20180227232101.20786-4-mcgrof@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > Currently fw_add_devm_name() returns 1 if the firmware cache > was already set. This makes it complicated for us to check for > correctness. It is actually non-fatal if the firmware cache > is already setup, so just return 0, and simplify the checkers. > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> That'll teach me to read all the patches first. ;) Honestly, I'd just fold this into the prior patch: there's only one caller and it's exactly about checking the return value. -Kees > --- > drivers/base/firmware_loader.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c > index 48932581c70c..a385622bf3e1 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c > +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c > @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int fw_add_devm_name(struct device *dev, const char *name) > > fwn = fw_find_devm_name(dev, name); > if (fwn) > - return 1; > + return 0; > > fwn = devres_alloc(fw_name_devm_release, sizeof(struct fw_name_devm), > GFP_KERNEL); > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ int assign_fw(struct firmware *fw, struct device *device, > if (device && (opt_flags & FW_OPT_UEVENT) && > !(opt_flags & FW_OPT_NOCACHE)) { > ret = fw_add_devm_name(device, fw_priv->fw_name); > - if (ret && ret != 1) { > + if (ret) { > mutex_unlock(&fw_lock); > return ret; > } > -- > 2.16.2 >
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:31:11PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > Currently fw_add_devm_name() returns 1 if the firmware cache > > was already set. This makes it complicated for us to check for > > correctness. It is actually non-fatal if the firmware cache > > is already setup, so just return 0, and simplify the checkers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> > > That'll teach me to read all the patches first. ;) > > Honestly, I'd just fold this into the prior patch: there's only one > caller and it's exactly about checking the return value. Sounds good. Luis
diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c index 48932581c70c..a385622bf3e1 100644 --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader.c @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int fw_add_devm_name(struct device *dev, const char *name) fwn = fw_find_devm_name(dev, name); if (fwn) - return 1; + return 0; fwn = devres_alloc(fw_name_devm_release, sizeof(struct fw_name_devm), GFP_KERNEL); @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ int assign_fw(struct firmware *fw, struct device *device, if (device && (opt_flags & FW_OPT_UEVENT) && !(opt_flags & FW_OPT_NOCACHE)) { ret = fw_add_devm_name(device, fw_priv->fw_name); - if (ret && ret != 1) { + if (ret) { mutex_unlock(&fw_lock); return ret; }
Currently fw_add_devm_name() returns 1 if the firmware cache was already set. This makes it complicated for us to check for correctness. It is actually non-fatal if the firmware cache is already setup, so just return 0, and simplify the checkers. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> --- drivers/base/firmware_loader.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)