On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:44:52AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:03:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > > in the code which seems to me problematic in two ways: > > > > 1) (minor) the dev_set_name() may fail, no checks are there; > > Is there anything besides a memory alloc failure? What will print a > message already. Wouldn't we fail a bit later on when adding the > device anyways? I don't see how we fail. Any pointers? > In a rough count, 92 out of 500 cases check the return of > dev_set_name(). Yeah, because it was new finding about that. Some static analyzers complain nowadays about this. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
