On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Paulo Marques wrote: > Julia Lawall wrote: > > [...] > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 3 --- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > index 218b9a1..5306901 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > @@ -745,9 +745,6 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type) > > > > fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device); > > > > - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > Shouldn't this still do a: > > if (!fujitsu) > return -EINVAL; acpi_driver_data just accesses a field of its argument. Is there a worry that from one call to the next it could have a different value? Perhaps it would be better to first test !device, then initialize fujitsu, and then test the result of fujitsu? The acpi_driver_data, which might someday do something more complicated, would only be called once. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
