On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:22:05PM +0200, Roel Kluin wrote: > Op 12-10-09 16:07, Herbert Xu schreef: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > . > >>> Or should this test be removed? > >>> > >>> diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > >>> index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644 > >>> --- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > >>> +++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > >>> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) > >>> int err; > >>> > >>> > >>> - if (nbytes < 0) > >>> + if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0) > >>> return -EINVAL; > >>> > >>> spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock); > >> No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you > >> pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you. > > > > Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead? > > In that case: > -------------------------->8------------------8<------------------------- > size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0 and the test was redundant. > > Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > index 3aa6e38..47995ae 100644 > --- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > +++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c > @@ -192,9 +192,6 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) > int err; > > > - if (nbytes < 0) > - return -EINVAL; > - > spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock); > > err = -EINVAL; > There you go, yes :) Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Neil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
