On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 01:59:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:29:01 +0200
> Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:53:57AM +0530, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > > > @@ -938,7 +940,7 @@ long intel_sst_ioctl(struct file *file_ptr,
> > > > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > > > retval = copy_to_user((struct snd_sst_vol *)arg,
> > > > &get_vol,
> > > > sizeof(get_vol)); if (retval) {
> > > > - retval = -EIO;
> > > > + retval = -EFAULT;
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > > /*sst_print_get_vol_info(str_id, &get_vol);*/
> > > Since retval is not used and value assigned is supposed to be
> > > -EFAULT, how about this?
> > > if(copy_to_user())
> > > return -EIO;
> > >
> >
> > No. No. retval is used. We can't return directly because we need to
> > call unlock_kernel().
>
> Dan - your tree is a couple of patches stale at this point if it has
> the lock_kernel in it - the lock_kernel has gone in the latest
> submission.
Yes. That went in last night. Vinod already told me.
I'll submit another patch which changes the file to the
if (copy_to_user())
retval = -EFAULT;
format. It will apply on top of the patches I sent already.
There are some other bugs I noticed when I wrote that so it's worth it
to clean it up.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
