Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()

Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()

[Markus Elfring]

>> 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

Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()

[Markus Elfring]

>> 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

Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()

[Markus Elfring]

>> 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

Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()

[Markus Elfring]

>> 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