On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
>
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
