On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:03 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 12/18, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > Nothing really prevents a provider from (trying to) register a clock > > without providing the clock ops structure. > > > > We do check the individual fields before using them, but not the > > structure pointer itself. This may have the usual nasty consequences when > > the pointer is dereferenced, mostly likely when checking one the field > > during the initialization. > > Yes, that nasty consequence should be a kernel oops,
Precisely > and the > developer should notice that before submitting the driver for > inclusion. Agreed. But people may make mistakes, which is why (at least partly) we do checks, isn't it ? > I don't think we really care to return an error here > if this happens. > I don't understand why we would let a oops happen when can catch the error properly ?