On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:26:02 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 March 2005 22:14, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > The Coverity checker noted that while all other uses of param in > > > ps2_command() were guarded by a NULL check, this one wasn't. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c.old > > > 2005-03-24 02:37:08.000000000 +0100 > > > +++ linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c 2005-03-24 > > > 02:38:28.000000000 +0100 > > > @@ -106,9 +106,10 @@ int ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, u > > > command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 1000 : 200)) > > > goto out; > > > > > > - for (i = 0; i < send; i++) > > > - if (ps2_sendbyte(ps2dev, param[i], 200)) > > > - goto out; > > > + if (param) > > > + for (i = 0; i < send; i++) > > > + if (ps2_sendbyte(ps2dev, param[i], 200)) > > > + goto out; > > > > > > > I somewhat disagree on this one. If caller specified that command requires > > arguments to be sent and it does not provide them I'd rather had it OOPS on > > the spot. With receiving, however, caller does not really have control over > > number of characters coming from the device so specifying NULL allows just > > ignore whatever response there is. > > Understood. > > Could this be handled with a BUG_ON? >
Yes, if it will make the checker happy. Although I (and this is probably just me) use BUG_ON only if kernel would not OOPS otherwise, to avoid scribbling over random memory and such. -- Dmitry - 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/
