Le 28/01/2013 10:57, Thierry Reding a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36:07AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
Hello,
Le 28/01/2013 09:45, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit :
hi Thierry,
On 01/26/2013 06:40 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
[...]
+{
+ return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_cansleep);
Would it make sense to check for NULL pointers here? I guess that
passing NULL into the function could be considered a programming error
and an oops would be okay, but in that case there's no point in making
the function return an int. Also see my next comment.
While it is unlikely to happen it is better to be safe, something like this
will do:
return pwm ? pwm->chip->can_sleep : 0;
Ok. And what about:
BUG_ON(pwm == NULL);
return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
I don't think we need that. In case pwm == NULL, dereferencing it will
oops anyway. So either we make it safe and return an error code, or we
let it oops without explicit BUG_ON().
Calling this function with a NULL pointer is a programming error, so there
is no error codes for such errors. I propose to return bool, and let it
oops if such case happens.
Regards,
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
