On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:47:58PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:29:02PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
> > introduced by commit 3c75e23784e6ed5f4841de43d0750fd9b37bafcb:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > ...
> > int aer_osc_setup(struct pcie_device *pciedev)
> > {
> > ... vvvvvvvvv
> > while (pdev->bus && pdev->bus->self)
> > pdev = pdev->bus->self;
>
> That could probably change to just pdev->bus->self, as a bus should
> always be there for a pdev, so I don't see this as a problem.
I'm not claiming this specific case was a problem.
When a NULL check is only performed in some cases that's sometimes a bug
that has to be fixed and in most cases a not required check that should
be removed at some point in time.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
