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
