Hi Daniel, On 2013년 07월 01일 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: >>> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is >>> meaningless. >> >> It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. >> As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned >> true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. > > If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't > this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return > 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads > as success. Yes, you are right. WARN_ON() is better because there was no crash until now. and I will also update all return values as false/true instead of 0/1. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > -- Seung-Woo Kim Samsung Software R&D Center -- _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
