From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84262C32771 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8912077B for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726587AbgAOR7z (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:59:55 -0500 Received: from sender4-op-o18.zoho.com ([136.143.188.18]:17868 "EHLO sender4-op-o18.zoho.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726574AbgAOR7z (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:59:55 -0500 Received: from nessie (pool-173-73-58-202.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.73.58.202]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1579111161250710.0911969793755; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:59:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:43:24 +0000 From: Dan Robertson To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , Linus Walleij , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: bma400: integer underflow setting accel scale Message-ID: <20200115174324.GA29555@nessie> References: <20200115174531.p623ukjibn6kg6zz@kili.mountain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200115174531.p623ukjibn6kg6zz@kili.mountain> X-ZohoMailClient: External Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Thanks for taking a look at the code and your feedback on the driver! On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 08:45:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We put an upper bound on "val2" but we also need to prevent negative > values. "val" is not used past the invalid value check. We only use "val" to make sure that it is in fact 0. AFAIK there is no "upper bound" on "val", it should be zero or we return -EINVAL. Am I missing something? Cheers, - Dan