On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 07:47:31PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:32:12 +0100 > > > > > @@ -130,6 +130,13 @@ static int __dev_add_param(struct param_d *param, struct device_d *dev, const ch > > > > > if (get_param_by_name(dev, name)) > > > > > return -EEXIST; > > > > > > > > > > + if (!name) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > Name is used already two lines above so barebox will already be crashed > > > > before this triggers. > > > > > > > > Besides, I normally don't like these checks. dereferencing NULL pointers > > > > means you get a backtrace showing you what went wrong. Returning an error > > > > means adding code which in this case makes dev_add_param just fail > > > > silently because the return value often is not checked. > > > > > > > > > > OK, then how about dropping this -EINVAL check? > > > > Yes, please. > > > I did that in v3. > > > > > > > > I think the -ENOMEM check below is still useful. > > > ( strdup() returns NULL also when NULL is passed, > > > but in that case this line cannot be reached. > > > The problem is that is not apparent at a glance..) > > > > Note we also have xstrdup which crashes barebox on out of memory. This > > is usually the right thing to do when it's known that the allocation is > > small. > > > > I stopped and I have been thinking about it. > I hesitate a bit to replace it with xstrdup(). I feel like being lazy. > > So, I did not do this in v3. The name of the parameter can be passed in by the user via the 'global' command, so using strdup instead seems like a good idea here. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
