From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Aditya Shankar <aditya.shankar@microchip.com>,
Ganesh Krishna <ganesh.krishna@microchip.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Remove unnecessary pointer check
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:39:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180921053911.GA5170@flashbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32473.1537507532@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:25:32AM -0400, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:26:49 -0700, Nathan Chancellor said:
> > Clang warns that the address of a pointer will always evaluated as true
> > in a boolean context:
> >
> > drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c:267:20: warning: address of
> > 'vif->ndev->dev' will always evaluate to 'true'
> > [-Wpointer-bool-conversion]
> > if (!(&vif->ndev->dev))
> > ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
> > 1 warning generated.
> >
> > Since this statement always evaluates to false due to the logical not,
> > remove it.
>
> Often, "just nuke it because it's now dead code" isn't the best answer...
>
> At one time, that was likely intended to be checking whether ->dev was a null
> pointer, to make sure we don't pass request_firmware() a null pointer and oops
> the kernel, or other things that go pear-shaped....
>
> So the question becomes: Is it safe to just remove it, or was it intended to
> test for something that could legitimately be null if we've hit an error along
> the way (which means we should fix the condition to be proper and acceptable
> to both gcc and clang)?
>
>
I certainly considered whether or not removing the check versus fixing
it was the correct answer. Given that this check can be traced back to
the initial check in of the driver in 2015, I figured it was safe to
remove it (since a null pointer dereference would most likely have been
noticed by now).
Most patches addressing this warning just remove the check given that it's
not actually changing the code, such as commit a7dc662c6a7b ("ASoC: codecs:
PCM1789: unconditionally flush work"). However, if the driver authors and/or
maintainers think that this check should be something else (maybe checking
that the contents of dev is not null versus the address, I'm perfectly
happy to submit a v2 with this change.
Thank you for the response and review!
Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-21 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-20 21:26 [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Remove unnecessary pointer check Nathan Chancellor
2018-09-21 5:25 ` valdis.kletnieks
2018-09-21 5:39 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2018-09-21 6:31 ` Ajay Singh
2018-09-21 8:03 ` Dan Carpenter
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=20180921053911.GA5170@flashbox \
--to=natechancellor@gmail.com \
--cc=aditya.shankar@microchip.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=ganesh.krishna@microchip.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).