From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20150716062305.GF17550@atomide.com> References: <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54705EC3.90708@users.sourceforge.net> <55928739.5040809@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: SF Markus Elfring , =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt?= Cousson , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Paul Walmsley [150715 22:58]: > Hello Markus > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200 > > > > The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test > > whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately. > > Thus the test around the call is not needed. > > > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > > Thanks for the patch. I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the > omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- > omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that > NULLs are allowed to be passed in. So there's no explicit contract that > callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL > pointer checks from being removed. > > So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to > explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed. Then I would > feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c > changes. > > The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed > in. So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit > message accordingly. I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in my branch as I have not pushed them out yet. Regards, Tony