On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally
> >> insane. Any non-zero retu
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally
>> insane. Any non-zero return is considered an error.
>>
>> The right fix is almost certainly to just re
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally
> insane. Any non-zero return is considered an error.
>
> The right fix is almost certainly to just return -EINVAL unconditionally.
Btw, this is why I hate compiler w
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> - return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? : -EINVAL;
> + return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? 1 : -EINVAL;
NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally
insane. Any non-zero return is considered an error.
The right f
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> gcc-7 warns about slightly suspicious code in vmw_cmd_invalid:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c: In function 'vmw_cmd_invalid':
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c:522:23: error: the omitted middle
> operand in ?: will always be 'true',
gcc-7 warns about slightly suspicious code in vmw_cmd_invalid:
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c: In function 'vmw_cmd_invalid':
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c:522:23: error: the omitted middle
operand in ?: will always be 'true', suggest explicit middle operand
[-Werror=parenthes
