On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:32:15PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:00:39AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I'm not convincd this is a sensible warning, at the use site a > > pointer to an array in a struct looks identical to an array > > embedded in the struct so it's not such a bad idea to check and > > refactoring of the struct could easily introduce problems. > Other static checkers like smatch will warn about this as well (since I > am sure that is how Dan Carpenter found the same issue in the wcd9335 > driver). Isn't an antipattern in the kernel to do things "just in > case we do something later"? There are plenty of NULL checks removed > from the kernel because they do not do anything now. I'm not convinced it is an antipattern - adding the checks would be a bit silly but with the way C works the warnings feel like false positives. If the compiler were able to warn about missing NULL checks in the case where the thing in the struct is a pointer I'd be a lot happier with this. > I'd be fine with changing the check to something else that keeps the > same logic but doesn't create a warning; I am not exactly sure what that > would be because that is more of a specific driver logic thing, which I > am not familiar with. I've queued the change to be applied since it's shuts the compiler up but I'm really not convinced the compiler is helping here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
