From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:32:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] fs/9p: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "p9_client_clunk" Message-Id: <54AB02F3.5020308@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54A01326.3050306@users.sourceforge.net> <54A06AB9.4020505@users.sourceforge.net> <20150105112206.GC15033@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20150105112206.GC15033@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen , Latchesar Ionkov , Ron Minnich , v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall >> The p9_client_clunk() function tests whether its argument is NULL >> and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not neede= d. >> >=20 > Not true. You are not allowed to call p9_client_clunk(NULL). I find that it will work in principle if we refer to the same function implementation. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/net/9= p/client.c?id=D8282ea05ad119247122de23db7d48ad6098cfa2#n1448 http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/9p/client.c#L1448 > I assume this patch adds a bug. It can happen that you will not like a corresponding error message if the callers will still pass null pointers eventually. ... Trying to clunk with NULL ... > I assume this patch adds a bug. You have tried to introduce several of t= hese > kinds of bugs. Do any other contributors want to reject my update suggestions around software components for "fs/9p"? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html