On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:35:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:35:29AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > Even if chip is expected not to be NULL, a sanity check costs nothing.
> > As already said, this should be reviewed in the context of the callback
> > change.
> >
> > Even then, the change should rather be:
> >
> > if (!chip) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Could not get client data at remove\n");
> > return;
> > }
>
> If it can't happen by design it should be deleted entirely, or be
> turned into a WARN_ON:
>
> if (WARN_ON(!chip))
> return;
>
> But I find this largely unnecessary as a null chip will reliably oops
> later on in the same function.
>
> Jason
Fine, I applied the patch.
BR, Jarkko
