On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:05:59AM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On 6/9/23 10:46, Greg KH wrote: > > > Again, how did you test this? > > Did you look at the patch header? For that particular case, the static > analysis tool complains that the value returned by get_device() is most > likely should be checked just because it is checked on a lot of other > code paths. Usually it may be a good precaution to handle the very rare > and unexpected errors; again, if you're sure that this is not the case, > just disregard it. Just because a static tool said "this might be wrong" does not mean you do not need to actually test your change or do some work to verify that it is a sane change at all. So far I have seen more and more false-positives from this "tool" of your group that I am very inclined to just tell all kernel maintainers to ignore them for a very long time as you are not following the documented rules for such patches as outlined in Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst Please read that and fix your tool, and your submission process, I've said this many times already. greg k-h
