From: Harsh Kumar <harsh1kumar@gmail.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Staging: winbond: usb_free_urb(NULL) is safe
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:50:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A70210.9040206@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51A6D6F6.1050204@gmail.com>
On Thursday 30 May 2013 12:58 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 30 May 2013, Harsh Kumar wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 10:41 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>> diff -uprN a/drivers/staging/winbond/wb35reg.c b/drivers/staging/winbond/wb35reg.c
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/winbond/wb35reg.c 2013-05-28 00:52:26.000000000 +0530
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/winbond/wb35reg.c 2013-05-28
> 02:11:35.000000000 +0530
>>>> @@ -64,12 +64,11 @@ unsigned char Wb35Reg_BurstWrite(struct
>>>>
>>>> return true;
>>>> } else {
>>>> - if (urb)
>>>> - usb_free_urb(urb);
>>>> + usb_free_urb(urb);
>>>
>>> I took a look at this case. Wouldn't it be nicer to check for failures
>>> one by one, as done almost everywhere else in the kernel? Then you would
>>> know what had been successfully allocated and what has to be freed.
>>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you want that values of urb and reg_queue to be checked separately to see which has
>> failed? That will be more logical. But, then what should be done with the knowledge of
>> what has failed? Should there be a print or should the return value change?
>
> I don't know much about the driver, so a safe thing to do would be just to
> keep the current semantics. When the kzalloc fails, just return false.
> When the usb_alloc_urb fails, just kfree and then return false.
>
> Also, currently there is a return false at the end of the function that is
> dead code. Perhaps things could be reorganized so that that is not
> necessary. Usually, after an allocation, the if just takes care of the
> error case, and the fallthrough case continues in the normal way.
>
Okay, got it. I will reorganize the stuff here.
>> Actually, the return values of these functions like Wb35Reg_BurstWrite() have not
>> been used where these functions are called. Maybe, we need to check whether write &
>> read are successful or not. Maybe, that also needs to be changed.
>
> I don't know.
>
> julia
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-30 7:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-30 4:47 [Patch] Staging: winbond: usb_free_urb(NULL) is safe Harsh Kumar
2013-05-30 5:11 ` Julia Lawall
2013-05-30 6:50 ` Harsh Kumar
2013-05-30 7:28 ` Julia Lawall
2013-05-30 7:43 ` Julia Lawall
2013-05-30 7:50 ` Harsh Kumar [this message]
2013-05-30 7:55 ` Harsh Kumar
2013-05-30 9:38 ` Pavel Machek
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=51A70210.9040206@gmail.com \
--to=harsh1kumar@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox