On 09.06.2023 11:05, 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. Nevertheless it is your responsibility to check if such situation can happen in practice in this particular place. And if there are non-obvious assumptions that prevent you to make such analysis before sending a patch, you are welcome to prepare a patch that improves documentation. Best regards, Alexey
