Hi Julia
> > > Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 3 ---
> > > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > > > index 218b9a1..5306901 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > > > @@ -745,9 +745,6 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
> > > >
> > > > fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > > >
> > > > - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
> > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > -
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this still do a:
> > >
> > > if (!fujitsu)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > to avoid dereferencing a NULL pointer below?
> >
> > Hmm, yes it should. Well spotted. And I'm not certain how the duplicate
> > test on "device" got in there in the first place. I suspect it came about
> > due to some structural changes made a few versions ago and I failed to
> > notice that the second check became redundant.
>
> If you are going to check fujitsu afterwards, then I think there is no
> need to test the result of acpi_driver_data before.
Yes, of course. I'll wake up soon, promise!
So we're left with this.
Signed-off-by: jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <Jonathan Woithe>
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-06-12 19:51:45.333234000 +0930
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-07-29 12:10:11.504901871 +0930
@@ -740,12 +740,12 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct ac
{
struct fujitsu_t *fujitsu = NULL;
- if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
+ if (!device)
return -EINVAL;
fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device);
- if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
+ if (!fujitsu)
return -EINVAL;
fujitsu->acpi_handle = NULL;
Regards
jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
