On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 12:39 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> > > Delete NULL test on array (always false). > > A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as > follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > // <smpl> > @r@ > type T; > T [] e; > position p; > @@ > e ==@p NULL > > @ disable fld_to_ptr@ > expression e; > identifier f; > position r.p; > @@ > * e.f ==@p NULL > // </smpl> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> > > --- > I don't know if this is the correct change, or if some other test was > intended. But the code has been this way since at least 2.4.20, so it > would seem that no one has been bothered by the lack of whatever this was > supposed to test for. > > drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c | 5 ----- > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c b/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c > index 67283ef..62e276b 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c > @@ -1169,11 +1169,6 @@ static struct adpt_device* adpt_find_device(adpt_hba* pHba, u32 chan, u32 id, u6 > if(chan < 0 || chan >= MAX_CHANNEL) > return NULL; > > - if( pHba->channel[chan].device == NULL){ > - printk(KERN_DEBUG"Adaptec I2O RAID: Trying to find device before they are allocated\n"); > - return NULL; > - } dpt_i2o is always weirdly fun, but I think, based on the message, this check is supposed to be if( pHba->channel[chan].device[id] == NULL){ Since device is an array of device pointers which are allocated by parsing data. James -- 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
