From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init() Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:54:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201904031408372646841@zte.com.cn> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Wen Yang , Gregory Clement , Viresh Kumar , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Cc: Yi Wang , Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137 > > Thank you for your comments. > Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer. I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far. > However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put > to avoid memory leaks. A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places. > So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later. Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language to detect similarly questionable implementation details? Regards, Markus