From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Staging: winbond: usb_free_urb(NULL) is safe
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:43:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1305300942180.2245@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51A6D6F6.1050204@gmail.com>
On Thu, 30 May 2013, Harsh Kumar wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I think that some of the other cases should be changed in the same way.
It is just in the destroy function that the if was not needed.
julia
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-30 7:43 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 [this message]
2013-05-30 7:50 ` Harsh Kumar
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=alpine.DEB.2.02.1305300942180.2245@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--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