[PATCH] mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value

[PATCH] mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value

[Roel Kluin]

The test for an mos7840_set_uart_reg() error return value only works when
status is signed. propagate its error value.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
---

diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c b/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
index aeeb9cb..ef1ede2 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
@@ -1713,7 +1713,7 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_serial_port *port, struct file *file,
 {
 	struct moschip_port *mos7840_port;
 	unsigned int mcr;
-	unsigned int status;
+	int status;
 
 	dbg("%s - port %d", __FUNCTION__, port->number);
 
@@ -1739,11 +1739,10 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_serial_port *port, struct file *file,
 
 	mos7840_port->shadowMCR = mcr;
 
-	status = 0;
 	status = mos7840_set_uart_reg(port, MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER, mcr);
 	if (status < 0) {
 		dbg("setting MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER Failed\n");
-		return -1;
+		return status;
 	}
 
 	return 0;

Re: [PATCH] mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value

[SL Baur]

On 4/16/08, Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> The test for an mos7840_set_uart_reg() error return value only works when
>  status is signed. propagate its error value.
>
>  Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
>  ---
>
>  diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c b/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
>  index aeeb9cb..ef1ede2 100644
>  --- a/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
>  +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
>  @@ -1713,7 +1713,7 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_serial_port *port, struct file *file,
>   {
>         struct moschip_port *mos7840_port;
>         unsigned int mcr;
>  -       unsigned int status;
>  +       int status;
>
>         dbg("%s - port %d", __FUNCTION__, port->number);
>
>  @@ -1739,11 +1739,10 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_serial_port *port, struct file *file,
>
>         mos7840_port->shadowMCR = mcr;
>
>  -       status = 0;
>         status = mos7840_set_uart_reg(port, MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER, mcr);
>         if (status < 0) {
>                 dbg("setting MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER Failed\n");
>  -               return -1;
>  +               return status;
>         }
>
>         return 0;

O.K.  I can see you're changing types to properly match the function return
values.  May I ask why you didn't change mos7840_tiocmget the same way?

-sb

patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[gregkh]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

     Subject: USB: mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value

to my gregkh-2.6 tree.  Its filename is

     usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch

This tree can be found at 
    http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/patches/


>From 12o3l@tiscali.nl Wed Apr 16 21:16:30 2008
From: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:16:24 +0200
Subject: USB: mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,  lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <4806CF18.2050403@tiscali.nl>


The test for an mos7840_set_uart_reg() error return value only works when
status is signed. propagate its error value.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
Cc: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

---
 drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c |    5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/serial/mos7840.c
@@ -1713,7 +1713,7 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_s
 {
 	struct moschip_port *mos7840_port;
 	unsigned int mcr;
-	unsigned int status;
+	int status;
 
 	dbg("%s - port %d", __func__, port->number);
 
@@ -1740,11 +1740,10 @@ static int mos7840_tiocmset(struct usb_s
 
 	mos7840_port->shadowMCR = mcr;
 
-	status = 0;
 	status = mos7840_set_uart_reg(port, MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER, mcr);
 	if (status < 0) {
 		dbg("setting MODEM_CONTROL_REGISTER Failed\n");
-		return -1;
+		return status;
 	}
 
 	return 0;


Patches currently in gregkh-2.6 which might be from 12o3l@tiscali.nl are

usb/usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch

Re: patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[SL Baur]

On 4/28/08, gregkh@suse.de <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
>
>  This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>
>      Subject: USB: mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value
>
>  to my gregkh-2.6 tree.  Its filename is
>
>      usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch

NAK.  Reviewer's question was never answered.

-sb

Re: patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> On 4/28/08, gregkh@suse.de <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >  This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> >
> >      Subject: USB: mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value
> >
> >  to my gregkh-2.6 tree.  Its filename is
> >
> >      usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch
> 
> NAK.  Reviewer's question was never answered.

Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
question was never answered?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[SL Baur]

On 4/28/08, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:

> Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
>  question was never answered?

I think there are more of the same issues that the patch
addressed in the same file and the patcher never responded
back about that.

-sb

Re: patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:39AM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> On 4/28/08, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> 
> > Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
> >  question was never answered?
> 
> I think there are more of the same issues that the patch
> addressed in the same file and the patcher never responded
> back about that.

But again, is the current patch somehow not valid?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: patch usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

[SL Baur]

On 4/29/08, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:39AM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
>  > On 4/28/08, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
>  > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
>  >
>  > > Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
>  > >  question was never answered?
>  >
>  > I think there are more of the same issues that the patch
>  > addressed in the same file and the patcher never responded
>  > back about that.
>
>
> But again, is the current patch somehow not valid?

No, it's fine.

-sb