On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:51:14AM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 06:06:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > In dma_request_chan() one of the kasprintf() call is not checked > > against NULL. This is completely fine right now, but make others > > aware of this aspect by adding a comment. > > suggest: > > Add comment in dma_request_chan() to clarify kasprintf() missing return > value check and it is correct funcationaly. Sure, thanks. ... > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS > > - chan->dbg_client_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s:%s", dev_name(dev), > > - name); > > + chan->dbg_client_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s:%s", dev_name(dev), name); > > + /* No functional issue if it fails, users are supposed to test before use */ > > comments should above chan->dbg_client_name ... It's placed exactly there on purpose. Because it explains > No funcational issue if it is NULL because user always test it before use. I think my is better because it reveals the actual issue, ideally users must not rely on that and the code here should assign a valid pointer. The problem is that the code paths are a bit twisted and I only can come up with this comment _for now_. Semantically this change is a band-aid (and not good), but at least it describes current (broken) desing. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
