linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: atmel-classd: fix odd_ptr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:42:14 +0800
From:	"Wu, Songjun" <songjun.wu@...el.com>
To:	Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>,
	kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
CC:	<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<kbuild-all@...org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: atmel-classd: fix odd_ptr_err.cocci
 warnings



On 9/28/2015 19:26, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>> "kbuild" == kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com> writes:
>
>   > sound/soc/atmel/atmel-classd.c:578:5-11: inconsistent IS_ERR and PTR_ERR, PTR_ERR on line 579
>   >  PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR
>
>   > Semantic patch information:
>   >  There can be false positives in the patch case, where it is the call
>   >  IS_ERR that is wrong.
>
>   > Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/tests/odd_ptr_err.cocci
>
>   > CC: Songjun Wu <songjun.wu@...el.com>
>   > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
>   > ---
>
>   >  atmel-classd.c |    2 +-
>   >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>   > --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel-classd.c
>   > +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel-classd.c
>   > @@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ static int atmel_classd_probe(struct pla
>
>   dd-> gclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "gclk");
>   >  	if (IS_ERR(dd->aclk)) {
>   > -		ret = PTR_ERR(dd->gclk);
>   > +		ret = PTR_ERR(dd->aclk);
>
> It looks like it is the other way around. It should test
> IS_ERR(dd->gclk) instead.
>
Thank you, you are right.
It should test IS_ERR(dd->gclk) instead.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/