From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: atull Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] add FPGA manager core Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:15:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1442935271-10375-1-git-send-email-atull@opensource.altera.com> <1442935271-10375-4-git-send-email-atull@opensource.altera.com> <20150922222929.GA26335@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> <20150923132354.GB31253@amd> <20150923141106.GH4953@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150923141106.GH4953@mwanda> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" To: Dan Carpenter Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, rubini@gnudd.com, pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, nico@linaro.org, iws@ovro.caltech.edu, michal.simek@xilinx.com, kyle.teske@ni.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, grant.likely@linaro.org, davidb@codeaurora.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, cesarb@cesarb.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, broonie@kernel.org, philip@balister.org, Petr Cvek , akpm@linux-foundation.org, monstr@monstr.eu, Pavel Machek , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, balbi@ti.com, davem@davemloft.net, robh+dt@kernel.org, rob@landley.net, Josh Cartwright , dinguyen@opensource.altera.com, delicious.quinoa@gm List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:23:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > +int fpga_mgr_firmware_load(struct fpga_manager *mgr, u32 flags, > > > > + const char *image_name) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct device *dev = &mgr->dev; > > > > + const struct firmware *fw; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + if (!mgr) > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > Again; I'm of the opinion this is needlessly defensive. > > > > Not only that, it can never happen. mgr is already dereferenced above. > > > > It's not dereferenced. We're taking the address of mgr->dev but we > don't dereference mgr. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > That's correct, it's not dereferenced. Is there some community agreement on whether we want to check a pointer that has been passed for NULL or not? This is C code after all. Checking a passed pointer for NULL is a very common reason to return -ENODEV. Alan