> I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the omap_device.c and > omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- omap_device_delete() > and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that NULLs are allowed > to be passed in. How are the chances to improve documentation around such implementation details? > So there's no explicit contract that callers can rely upon, to (at least > in theory) prevent those internal NULL pointer checks from being removed. Are there any additional variations to consider for source files from different processor architectures? > So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to > explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed. Should my static source code analysis approach help you any more to clarify further open issues? > So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit message accordingly. Thanks for your constructive feedback. >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +-- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c | 5 +---- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c | 3 +-- Did Tony Lindgren pick a similar update suggestion up, too? https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/15/112 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
