On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:37:22PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 03:27:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2017-08-17 14:51:48, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 01:27:38PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > Hello Nate Case, > > > > > > > > > > The patch f46e9203d9a1: "leds: Add support for Philips PCA955x I2C > > > > > LED drivers" from Jul 16, 2008, leads to the following static checker > > > > > warning: > > > > > > > 472 /* > > > > > 473 * Platform data can specify LED names and > > > > > 474 * default triggers > > > > > 475 */ > > > > > 476 if (pdata->leds[i].name) > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > The comment implies that we should be testing pdata->leds[i].name[0] to > > > > > see if any string has been set? > > > > > > > > Someone was already submitting patch from this one, no? > > > > > > > > And please don't mark this one as a "bug report". There's no bug. Your > > > > code analysis tool found a way to make kernel code shorter... well, so > > > > what? > > > > > > > > > > You didn't read my email. It was only one sentence long... :/ > > > > I read your subject, and it claimed bug. > > > > Bug normally means: Hey, there's problem with the driver. It oopses my > > kernel here. > > > > I thought it probably was a bug. One hour ago Colin "fixed" one of > these by removing the NULL check and it turned out that it was a real > bug. It's legit to suspect that these are often bugs. > It's especially legit to suspect that the check might be important if there is a comment explaining why the check is there. If you don't want people to question your code stop writing nonsense code in the first place. Gar... regards, dan carpenter
