On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Simon Sandström wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:31:59AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:08:01PM +0200, Simon Sandström wrote: > > > [..] > > > - ret = copy_to_user((void*)ioctl_param, (void*)&temp, sizeof(temp)); > > > + ret = copy_to_user((void *)ioctl_param, (void *)&temp, sizeof(temp)); > > > if (ret) > > > return -EFAULT; > > > > This should really be written like so: > > > > if (copy_to_user((void __user *)ioctl_param, &temp, > > sizeof(temp))) > > return -EFAULT; > > > > temp is really the wrong name. "temp" is for temperatures. "tmp" means > > temporary. But also "tmp" is wrong here because it's not a temporary > > variable. It's better to call it "regs" here. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > > > I agree, but I don't think it fits within this patch. I can send a > separate patch with this change. You could send the other chunk as a separate patch, but I don't think it makes sense to apply this chunk when really it just needs to be re-written. I normally don't complain too much about mechanical no-thought patches, but in this case the function is very sub-par and should be re-written. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
