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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
