On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> ttm_bo_unref unconditionally calls kref_put on it's argument, so the
>> thing can't be NULL without already causing Oopses.
>
> Doesn't this mean the NULL check is in the wrong place (rather than
On 04/07/2014 12:56 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> ttm_bo_unref unconditionally calls kref_put on it's argument, so the
>>> thing can't be NULL without already causing Oopses.
>>
>> Doesn't this mea
On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> ttm_bo_unref unconditionally calls kref_put on it's argument, so the
> thing can't be NULL without already causing Oopses.
Doesn't this mean the NULL check is in the wrong place (rather than the
NULL check should be removed)?
> Spotted by coverity.
>
ttm_bo_unref unconditionally calls kref_put on it's argument, so the
thing can't be NULL without already causing Oopses.
Spotted by coverity.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
---
drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gp
