On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
.
> > Or should this test be removed?
> > 
> > diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> > index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
> > --- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> > +++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, 
> > struct prng_context *ctx)
> >     int err;
> >  
> >  
> > -   if (nbytes < 0)
> > +   if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
> >             return -EINVAL;
> >  
> >     spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
> No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check.  Herbert, could 
> you
> pull this into cryptodev please?  Thank you.

Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to