On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:38:44 +0100 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:30:04 +0000 > Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 13/12/17 20:24, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:17:43 +0000 > > > Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> The check of len being zero is redundant as it has already been > > >> sanity checked for this value at the start of the function. Hence > > >> it is impossible for this test to be true and so the redundant > > >> code can be removed. > > > > > > Nope, it's not the same test, the initial test is > > > > > > if (len && !buf) > > > > Ah, the current tip from linux-next has: > > > > 1912 if (!len || !buf) > > 1913 return -EINVAL; > > > > ..so I guess that's why it got picked up by static analysis. > > Hm, that's weird, that's not what I see [1] in linux-next. This being said, the test in nand_readid_op() is wrong [1], so maybe this was the thing you were trying to fix. No need to send a new patch, I'll squash the fix in the commit introducing the function. Thanks, Boris [1]http://code.bulix.org/kxivhd-240572 -- 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
