On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Maxim Korotkov wrote: > On 29.03.2024 03:21, Armin Wolf wrote: > > > Added a pointer check to ensure that it is valid > > > before using it for pcc initialization. > > > > is this check even needed? I think the ACPI driver core takes care > > of passing a valid ACPI device pointer to acpi_pcc_hotkey_remove(). > > I proceeded from the assumption that the current check was not redundant. > Kuppuswamy correctly noted in the message that the device would most likely be > valid for the function of removal. > > However, in my opinion, checking for NULL is a good coding practice, and has > now been implemented incorrectly in this case. > > Eliminating NULL checks could potentially cause bugs in this context. Hi, If you're going to be submitting patches based on some automated tool which finds "bugs" in kernel, you need to be ready to go through the hoops of the review process and not just assume the patches are good as is. We do not do pointless NULL checks in the kernel, this is not a matter of opinion. If there are unnecessary NULL checks, they should to be eventually removed (and definitely not used as an excuse to add more). If the NULL check is not required as was implied to you by the reviewers, the correct response is to go check that the what the reviewers pointed out is true and _adapt_ the patch based on that. Then send a v2 of the patch. It how the kernel development process works. You might sometimes find the reviewers are wrong too, if that happens you can come back and point out why the patch is correct. Either removing that check adds a bug or it doesn't. Not "potentially" which is just an excuse for not wanting to figure it out from the code. It takes time and significant effort, I know, but spending time is required if you want to participate in the kernel development. -- i.
