From: Firo Yang <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 21:21:46 +0800
> @@ -576,6 +576,10 @@ static int hdlcdrv_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct > ifreq *ifr, int cmd) > case HDLCDRVCTL_CALIBRATE: > if(!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) > return -EPERM; > + if (!netif_running(dev)) > + return -ENODEV; > + if (!(s->par.bitrate > 0)) > + return -EINVAL; This test is so un-canonical and convoluted. Please use something more straightforward. I really think Alan Cox's patch handled this more cleanly. Make the test something like "if (x <= 0) return -EINVAL;". I also am not convinced about the netif_running() test and at best it is a separate change from this divide by zero bug fix so belongs in a separate patch. Thank you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
