On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:32:53PM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference. > > Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. > Could you mention in the change log which pointer you are worried about? I think you are concerned about "priv" here. "priv" comes from container_of() and checking the return value of container_of() doesn't make sense. It does some pointer math so even if "work" is NULL the "priv" pointer would be non-zero. Just remove the check. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
