2016-05-26 21:29 GMT+09:00 Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 26/05/16 05:56, DaeSeok Youn wrote:
>> 2016-05-26 6:48 GMT+09:00 Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 20/05/16 10:51, Daeseok Youn wrote:
>>>> the "brd" value cannot be NULL in dgnc_finalize_board_init().
>>>> Because "brd" as a parameter of this function was already
>>>> checked for NULL.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c | 3 ---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
>>>> index af2e835..22257d2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
>>>> @@ -579,9 +579,6 @@ static int dgnc_finalize_board_init(struct dgnc_board *brd)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc = 0;
>>>>
>>>> - if (!brd || brd->magic != DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC)
>>>> - return -ENODEV;
>>>> -
>>>> if (brd->irq) {
>>>> rc = request_irq(brd->irq, brd->bd_ops->intr,
>>>> IRQF_SHARED, "DGNC", brd);
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is partially correct, the check for brd being NULL is in line 371.
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> Yes, right. but also brd was assigned the value DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC in line 384.
>> brd->magic = DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC;
>> and also dgnc_finalize_board_init() as a static function is only
>> called in dgnc_found_board(), right?
>>
>>>
>>> But there is a second check for brd->magic != DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC. Do you want
>>> to keep that one?
>> So.. I think it doesn't need to check about DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC.
>
> This is good. I was asking just to make sure it was your intention.
>
> Please add the reason to drop that second check in the commit message as well. So people
> reading the git log can understand both parts. For both patches.
OK. I will update the change log and resend it.
Thanks.
regards,
Daeseok.
>
> Thanks for the fixes :)
>
> Luis
>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, how did you find this patch. It is useful to mention this in the commit
>>> message if it was through some static analysis tool. For people using these tools
>>> in the future.
>> There are some static analysis tool for checking linux kernel code.
>> But I didn't use
>> those tools for this patch. sometimes, I usually run "smatch" tool for
>> checking linux kernel
>> code.
>>
>> thanks.
>> regards,
>> Daeseok.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch :)
>>> Luis
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
