[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907301627260.8734@ask.diku.dk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:29:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sound/aoa: Add kmalloc NULL tests
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:11 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
> >
> > Check that the result of kzalloc is not NULL before a dereference.
>
> > irq_client = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pmf_irq_client),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!irq_client) {
> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "snd-aoa: gpio layer failed to"
> > + " register %s irq (%d)\n", name, err);
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
>
> Looks good, thanks, but I'd really drop the printk if only to not have
> the string there, that doesn't really seem interesting.
The printk is based on similar error handling code a few lines later:
if (err) {
printk(KERN_ERR "snd-aoa: gpio layer failed to"
" register %s irq (%d)\n", name,
err);
kfree(irq_client);
goto out_unlock;
}
Should the printk be removed in this case as well? Or is it ok to fail
silently in one case and not in the other?
julia
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists