On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call > >>> of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement? > >> > >> It does include that, > > > >Thanks for this acknowledgement. > > > >So it seems that you find my interpretation of this bit of SmPL code appropriate. > > > >> but there is another execution path where the put device is not present. > > > >It is tried to find such cases. > > > >> But given the test in the if in the when code, > >> on that execution path id is NULL, an so there is no need to put it. > > > >I would like to point out that the function “put_device” belongs also to > >the category of functions which tolerate the passing of null pointers. > >https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0-rc6/source/drivers/base/core.c#L2053 > >https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/base/core.c?id=cb5b020a8d38f77209d0472a0fea755299a8ec78#n2053 > > > >Have we got still different software development opinions about the need > >for an extra pointer check in the “second” SmPL when specification? > > Thanks to Julia and Markus. > We will modify the the if in the when code like this: > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; } > ... when != put_device(&id->dev) > when != platform_device_put(id) > when != of_dev_put(id) > - when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... } > + when != if (...) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... } This looks ok. You can check the old version and the new version and see if there is any differencein the set of reports. julia
