On 03/18/2013 04:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. Anyone want to submit a patch? -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
