On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 13:00 +1000, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote: > On 05/05/16 16:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 15:32 -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: > > > On 04/27/2016 10:34 PM, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c > > > > index ceb18d3..a560a98 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c > > > > @@ -191,8 +191,8 @@ static int update_dt_node(__be32 phandle, s32 scope) > > > > break; > > > > > > > > case 0x80000000: > > > > - prop = of_find_property(dn, prop_name, NULL); > > > > - of_remove_property(dn, prop); > > > > + of_remove_property(dn, of_find_property(dn, > > > > + prop_name, NULL)); > > > > prop = NULL; > > > > break; > > > > > > > You haven't removed a NULL check here, as suggested by the changelog, > > > but instead made a cosmetic change to the code that still leaves behind > > > a now unnecessary "prop = NULL;" to bit rot. > > Yeah I think you're right. Though it's not very clear how prop is used in that > > function. > > I didn't delete the prop = NULL; initially as I didn't fully understand > how it was used in the rest of the function and the effect of deleting > it. Yeah, it's pretty convoluted. I don't think you can actually prove it's safe to remove the prop = NULL for arbitrary inputs. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
