From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 12:54:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer.
I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far.
> However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put
> to avoid memory leaks.
A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places.
> So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later.
Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language
to detect similarly questionable implementation details?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:54:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer.
I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far.
> However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put
> to avoid memory leaks.
A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places.
> So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later.
Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language
to detect similarly questionable implementation details?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:54:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer.
I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far.
> However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put
> to avoid memory leaks.
A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places.
> So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later.
Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language
to detect similarly questionable implementation details?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:54:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer.
I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far.
> However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put
> to avoid memory leaks.
A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places.
> So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later.
Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language
to detect similarly questionable implementation details?
Regards,
Markus
next parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-03 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn>
2019-04-03 12:54 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-04-03 12:54 ` [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init() Markus Elfring
2019-04-03 12:54 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-03 12:54 ` Markus Elfring
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=e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=wang.yi59@zte.com.cn \
--cc=wen.yang99@zte.com.cn \
/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.