On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:07:53PM +0900, Herbert Xu wrote:
> 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?
> 
Sorry, thats what I mean't to say.  Can you kill it, or do you want a patch for
it?
Neil

> 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