On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Please review, this patch was not tested.
>
> The static function set_tvnorm is called in
> drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c:
>
> 1355: set_tvnorm(btv, norm);
> 1868: set_tvnorm(btv, i);
> 3273: set_tvnorm(btv,btv->tvnorm);
>
> in the first two with an unsigned, but bttv->tvnorm is signed.
Probably better to just change bttv->tvnorm is unsigned if we can.
>
> see vi drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttvp.h +381
> since norm is unsigned in set_tvnorm, a negative won't get noticed.
> so remove the redundant check and move it to the caller.
>
> My question is: should we error return like this?
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
> index c71f394..6f50f90 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
> @@ -1290,7 +1290,7 @@ set_tvnorm(struct bttv *btv, unsigned int norm)
> const struct bttv_tvnorm *tvnorm;
> v4l2_std_id id;
>
> - if (norm < 0 || norm >= BTTV_TVNORMS)
> + if (norm >= BTTV_TVNORMS)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> tvnorm = &bttv_tvnorms[norm];
> @@ -3266,6 +3266,10 @@ static int bttv_open(struct file *file)
> V4L2_FIELD_SEQ_TB,
> sizeof(struct bttv_buffer),
> fh);
> + if (btv->norm < 0) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> set_tvnorm(btv,btv->tvnorm);
> set_input(btv, btv->input, btv->tvnorm);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
