Hi Adam, > PTR_ERR() returns a long type value, but btusb_setup_intel() and > btusb_setup_intel_patching() should return an int type value. > > This bug makes the judgement "if (ret < 0)" not working on x86_64 > architecture systems, leading to failure as below, even panic. > > [ 12.958920] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 14.961765] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 16.964688] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 20.954501] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 22.957358] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 30.948922] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 32.951780] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 40.943359] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 42.946219] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 50.937812] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 52.940670] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 60.932236] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 62.935092] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 70.926688] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 72.929545] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout > [ 80.921111] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed > (-110) > [ 82.923969] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc2f tx timeout > [ 90.915542] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc2f) failed > (-110) > [ 92.918406] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc11 tx timeout > [ 100.909955] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc11) failed > (-110) > [ 102.912858] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc60 tx timeout > [ 110.904394] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc60) failed > (-110) > [ 112.907293] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc11 tx timeout > [ 120.898831] Bluetooth: hci0 exiting Intel manufacturer mode failed (-110) > [ 120.904757] bluetoothd[1030]: segfault at 4 ip 00007f8b2eb55236 sp > 00007fff53ff6920 error 4 in bluetoothd[7f8b2eaff000+cb000] > > For not affecting other modules, I choose to modify the return values > but not extend btusb_setup_intel() and btusb_setup_intel_patching()'s > return types. This is harmless, because the return values were only > used to comparing number 0.
there are tons of examples in various subsystems and drivers where we return PTR_ERR from a function calls returning int. So I wonder what is actually going wrong here. If this is x86_64 specific problem with PTR_ERR vs int, then we should have this problem everywhere in the kernel. Regards Marcel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
