>> If you are convinced that dropping the null tests is a good idea, then you >> can submit the patch that makes the change to the relevant maintainers and >> mailing lists. Hello, A couple of functions perform input parameter validation before their implementations will try further actions with side effects. Some calling functions perform similar safety checks. Functions which release a system resource are occasionally documented in the way that they tolerate the passing of a null pointer for example. I do not see a need because of this fact that a function caller repeats a corresponding check. Now I would like to propose such a change again. 1. Extension of the infrastructure for the analysis tool "coccicheck" Semantic patch patterns can help to identify update candidates also in the Linux source file hierarchy. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle?id=79f0345fefaafb7cde301a830471edd21a37989b Would you like to reconsider an approach which was discussed with a subject like "scripts/coccinelle/free: Delete NULL test before freeing functions?" a while ago? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/9/36 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/linux.kernel/rIWfYsRRW6I/cTs6y0STf2cJ 2. Clarification for some automated update suggestions My source code search approach found 227 functions with the help of the software "Coccinelle 1.0.0-rc22" at least which might need another review and corresponding corrections for Linux 3.16.3. Further software development will point out even more potentially open issues. Regards, Markus -- 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
