From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v3] alsa-lib: fixed coverity reported issues under "FORWARD_NULL" checker. Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:49:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20110404114915.GA26494@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1301907239-1873-1-git-send-email-sudarshan.bisht@nokia.com> <20110404091823.GA18247@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84733243BE for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, sudarshan.bisht@nokia.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:35:11PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > > - if (h == NULL) > > > + if (h) > > > snd_dlclose(h); > > This is a coding style change, the two conditions are equivalent. > I thought too at the first glance ;) > It's the advantage of a systematic check. Hrm, yes. Actually the issue here was that due to many of the other changes I was reading very quickly - the patch looks a lot like a misfiring automation.