From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c - IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:39:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130509153933.GA31554@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130509090911.GM21614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [130509 02:14]:
> So, I eliminated all but a very few of these from arch/arm, and I notice
> today that there's a new couple of instances introduced by:
Sorry I should have noticed that fnord, I had it in my muttrc but had
a an unnecessary \ in the expression so it did not work.
Here's a patch to fix the issue.
Hmm maybe we could redefine IS_ERR_OR_NULL as error in some ARM header
as long as drivers don't include it?
Regards,
Tony
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:27:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: Remove bogus IS_ERR_OR_NULL checking from id.c
Commit 6770b211 (ARM: OMAP2+: Export SoC information to userspace)
had some broken return value handling as noted by Russell King:
+ soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(soc_dev)) {
+ kfree(soc_dev_attr);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ parent = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev);
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent))
+ device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
This is nonsense. For the first, IS_ERR() is sufficient. For the second,
tell me what error checking is required in the return value of this
function:
struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc_dev)
{
return &soc_dev->dev;
}
when you've already determined that the passed soc_dev is a valid pointer.
If you read the comments against the prototype:
/**
* soc_device_to_device - helper function to fetch struct device
* @soc: Previously registered SoC device container
*/
struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc);
if "soc" is valid, it means the "previously registered SoC device container"
must have succeeded and that can only happen if the struct device has been
registered. Ergo, there will always be a valid struct device pointer for
any registered SoC device container. Therefore, if soc_device_register()
succeeds, then the return value from soc_device_to_device() will always be
valid and no error checking of it is required.
Simples. The rule as ever applies here: get to know the APIs your using
and don't fumble around in the dark hoping that you'll get this stuff
right.
Fix it as noted by Russell.
Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
index 9bc5a18..1272c41 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
@@ -648,13 +648,12 @@ void __init omap_soc_device_init(void)
soc_dev_attr->revision = soc_rev;
soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
- if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(soc_dev)) {
+ if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) {
kfree(soc_dev_attr);
return;
}
parent = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev);
- if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent))
- device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
+ device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
}
#endif /* CONFIG_SOC_BUS */
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c - IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:39:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130509153933.GA31554@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130509090911.GM21614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [130509 02:14]:
> So, I eliminated all but a very few of these from arch/arm, and I notice
> today that there's a new couple of instances introduced by:
Sorry I should have noticed that fnord, I had it in my muttrc but had
a an unnecessary \ in the expression so it did not work.
Here's a patch to fix the issue.
Hmm maybe we could redefine IS_ERR_OR_NULL as error in some ARM header
as long as drivers don't include it?
Regards,
Tony
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:27:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: Remove bogus IS_ERR_OR_NULL checking from id.c
Commit 6770b211 (ARM: OMAP2+: Export SoC information to userspace)
had some broken return value handling as noted by Russell King:
+ soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(soc_dev)) {
+ kfree(soc_dev_attr);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ parent = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev);
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent))
+ device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
This is nonsense. For the first, IS_ERR() is sufficient. For the second,
tell me what error checking is required in the return value of this
function:
struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc_dev)
{
return &soc_dev->dev;
}
when you've already determined that the passed soc_dev is a valid pointer.
If you read the comments against the prototype:
/**
* soc_device_to_device - helper function to fetch struct device
* @soc: Previously registered SoC device container
*/
struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc);
if "soc" is valid, it means the "previously registered SoC device container"
must have succeeded and that can only happen if the struct device has been
registered. Ergo, there will always be a valid struct device pointer for
any registered SoC device container. Therefore, if soc_device_register()
succeeds, then the return value from soc_device_to_device() will always be
valid and no error checking of it is required.
Simples. The rule as ever applies here: get to know the APIs your using
and don't fumble around in the dark hoping that you'll get this stuff
right.
Fix it as noted by Russell.
Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
index 9bc5a18..1272c41 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
@@ -648,13 +648,12 @@ void __init omap_soc_device_init(void)
soc_dev_attr->revision = soc_rev;
soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
- if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(soc_dev)) {
+ if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) {
kfree(soc_dev_attr);
return;
}
parent = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev);
- if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent))
- device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
+ device_create_file(parent, &omap_soc_attr);
}
#endif /* CONFIG_SOC_BUS */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-09 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-09 9:09 arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c - IS_ERR_OR_NULL() Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-05-09 9:09 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-05-09 15:39 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2013-05-09 15:39 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-05-10 9:50 ` Ruslan Bilovol
2013-05-10 9:50 ` Ruslan Bilovol
2013-05-10 15:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-05-10 15:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130509153933.GA31554@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.