>>> The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation >>> by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function. >>> Thus the test around the calls is not needed. >>> >>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> As Dan correctly pointed out, this is not as straightforward as it might >> seem on a firsr sight, because there is a WARN_ON() that might start >> triggering in case of !ihid->desc. >> >> Adding Benjamin. I am not applying this without his Ack. >> > > I think the gpiod case is the exception rather than the common rule > (most i2c-hid device we saw until recently were using irqs, not > gpios). So if I understand correctly, removing the check on ihid->desc > would raise a warning for most devices. This is IMO not a good thing, > so I would say NACK. > > Mika might have a different opinion though. The proposed update candidates are contained in the source file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708. * i2c_hid_remove() function: Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null? * i2c_hid_probe() function: Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump label "err" will be reached? 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
