Hi Rickard, On 22/05/14 23:01, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > Cleaning up inconsistent NULL checks. > There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference. > > Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. > > Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c > index 0424315..3f8d5cd 100644 > --- a/arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c > +++ b/arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c > @@ -188,7 +188,8 @@ new_search: > } > } > after_huge = 0; > - addr = ALIGN_HUGEPT(vma->vm_end); > + if (vma) > + addr = ALIGN_HUGEPT(vma->vm_end); > } > } > #endif > I don't think this is a correct fix. If !vma && !after_huge the first if block in the loop will match and the function will return 0. If !vma && after_huge the 3rd if block in the loop will match and the function will return addr. So removing the vma condition on the final if block in the loop would probably make sense instead. Does that satisfy cppcheck? Cheers James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
