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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
