Please review, this patch was not tested.
The static function set_tvnorm is called in
drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c:
1355: set_tvnorm(btv, norm);
1868: set_tvnorm(btv, i);
3273: set_tvnorm(btv,btv->tvnorm);
in the first two with an unsigned, but bttv->tvnorm is signed.
see vi drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttvp.h +381
since norm is unsigned in set_tvnorm, a negative won't get noticed.
so remove the redundant check and move it to the caller.
My question is: should we error return like this?
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kl...@gmail.com>
---
diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
index c71f394..6f50f90 100644
--- a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
+++ b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c
@@ -1290,7 +1290,7 @@ set_tvnorm(struct bttv *btv, unsigned int norm)
const struct bttv_tvnorm *tvnorm;
v4l2_std_id id;
- if (norm < 0 || norm >= BTTV_TVNORMS)
+ if (norm >= BTTV_TVNORMS)
return -EINVAL;
tvnorm = &bttv_tvnorms[norm];
@@ -3266,6 +3266,10 @@ static int bttv_open(struct file *file)
V4L2_FIELD_SEQ_TB,
sizeof(struct bttv_buffer),
fh);
+ if (btv->norm < 0) {
+ unlock_kernel();
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
set_tvnorm(btv,btv->tvnorm);
set_input(btv, btv->input, btv->tvnorm);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
