Hi Andrei, On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since > those conditions are checked already. It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are referring to it in subject. > --- > android/gatt.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644 > --- a/android/gatt.c > +++ b/android/gatt.c > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib) > return; > > - if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions)) > - return; > + gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions); > > if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions)) > return; So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should change it definition to something like: uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib); Thoughts? -- BR Szymon Janc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
