Dan Carpenter schrieb:
> These checks merely duplicate the things we've asserted already. In the
> case of the checks for null we've already dereferenced those variables
> as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/net/caif/cfcnfg.c b/net/caif/cfcnfg.c
> index df43f26..cc2f072 100644
> --- a/net/caif/cfcnfg.c
> +++ b/net/caif/cfcnfg.c
> @@ -313,14 +313,10 @@ cfcnfg_linkup_rsp(struct cflayer *layer, u8 channel_id, enum cfctrl_srv serv,
> caif_assert(phyinfo->phy_layer != NULL);
> caif_assert(phyinfo->phy_layer->id == phyid);
>
> - if (phyinfo != NULL &&
> - phyinfo->phy_ref_count++ == 0 &&
> - phyinfo->phy_layer != NULL &&
> + if (phyinfo->phy_ref_count++ == 0 &&
> phyinfo->phy_layer->modemcmd != NULL) {
> - caif_assert(phyinfo->phy_layer->id == phyid);
> phyinfo->phy_layer->modemcmd(phyinfo->phy_layer,
> _CAIF_MODEMCMD_PHYIF_USEFULL);
> -
> }
> adapt_layer->id = channel_id;
>
hi Dan,
the phyinfo->phy_ref_count++ is very hidden, perhaps in terms of readability
it is better to move the phyinfo->phy_ref_count++ inside.
just my 2 cents,
re,
wh
--
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
