On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 11:36 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 08:57 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > True. It probably doesn't *matter* because the size is zero so the
> > firmware is just going to ignore the pointer anyway. Although in that
> > case I wonder why we couldn't have just passed NULL. Perhaps we expected
> > that some firmware might do some validation on the pointer before
> > getting to the size check?
>
> I doubt that the firmware checks the validity of pci_handle when size is
> zero, and I agree it's worth passing NULL to silence the warning (which
> is also more explicit that just initialising pci_handle), unless Matthew
> knows of a reason we shouldn't do that?
No reason I can think of, and any failure will be pretty immediately
obvious.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
