On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:40 PM, <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2018-05-22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM, <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 2018-05-18 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>> +struct llcc_slice_desc *llcc_slice_getd(u32 uid) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + const struct llcc_slice_config *cfg; >>>>> + struct llcc_slice_desc *desc; >>>>> + u32 sz, count = 0; >>>>> + >>>>> + cfg = drv_data->cfg; >>>>> + sz = drv_data->cfg_size; >>>>> + >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> + while (cfg && count < sz) { >>>>> + if (cfg->usecase_id == uid) >>>>> + break; >>>>> + cfg++; >>>>> + count++; >>>>> + } >>>>> + if (cfg == NULL || count == sz) >>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>>> if (!cfg) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>>> >>>> while (cfg->... != uid) { >>>> cfg++; >>>> count++; >>>> } >>>> >>>> if (count == sz) >>>> return ... >>>> >>>> Though I would rather put it to for () loop. >>>> >>> In each while loop iteration the cfg pointer needs to be checked for >>> NULL. What if the usecase id never matches the uid passed by client >>> and we keep iterating. At some point it will crash. >> do { >> if (!cfg || count == sz) >> return ...(-ENODEV); >> ... >> } while (...); >> >> Though, as I said for-loop will look slightly better I think. > > Is this fine? > for (count = 0; count < sz; count++) { > if (!cfg) > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > if (cfg->usecase_id == uid) > break; > cfg++; > } > if (count == sz) > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); for (count = 0; cfg && count < sz; count++, cfg++) if (_id == uid) break; if (!cfg || count == sz) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); Simpler ? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html