On Wed, 6 May 2020 17:30:06 +0200
Markus Elfring wrote:
> > This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
> > call.
>
> Is there a need to prevent similar function calls by the means of
> advanced source code analysis?
It's a seriously stupid bug so I'd have thou
On Fri, 8 May 2020 14:02:21 +0100
Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 19:31:38 +0200
> Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>
> > Le 06/05/2020 à 12:38, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM Christophe JAILLET
> > > wrote:
> > >> This looks really unusual
On Wed, 6 May 2020 19:31:38 +0200
Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 06/05/2020 à 12:38, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM Christophe JAILLET
> > wrote:
> >> This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
> >> call.
> >> Remove it.
>
Le 06/05/2020 à 12:38, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
call.
Remove it.
While at it add a missing \n at the end of the message.
It should have Fixes tag because it
> This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
> call.
Is there a need to prevent similar function calls by the means of
advanced source code analysis?
Regards,
Markus
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
>
> This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
> call.
> Remove it.
>
> While at it add a missing \n at the end of the message.
>
It should have Fixes tag because it is a quite an issue (get_device()
breaks r
This looks really unusual to have a 'get_device()' hidden in a 'dev_err()'
call.
Remove it.
While at it add a missing \n at the end of the message.
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET
---
This patch is purely speculative.
I've looked a bit arround and see no point for this get_device() but other
e
7 matches
Mail list logo