On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:15 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We assume that "pd" can be null on the previous line, and throughout the > function so we should check it here as well. This was introduced by > 9b2c2ff7a1c0 "mv643xx_eth: use sw csum for big packets" > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c b/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > index 2fcdb1e..9166f55 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > +++ b/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > @@ -2675,7 +2675,8 @@ static int mv643xx_eth_shared_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > * Detect hardware parameters. > */ > msp->t_clk = (pd != NULL && pd->t_clk != 0) ? pd->t_clk : 133000000; > - msp->tx_csum_limit = pd->tx_csum_limit ? pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024; > + msp->tx_csum_limit = (pd && pd->tx_csum_limit) ? > + pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024; It's odd using two different check styles for the same test on consecutive lines. How about using the same style: msp->tx_csum_limit = (pd != NULL && pd->tx_csum_limit) ? pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024; -- 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
