linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: delete unneeded call to platform_get

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1405171511140.2587@hadrien>
Date:	Sat, 17 May 2014 15:12:02 +0800 (SGT)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
cc:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: delete unneeded call to platform_get_drvdata



On Sat, 17 May 2014, Fabio Estevam wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> >
> > Platform_get_drvdata is an accessor function, and has no purpose if its
> > result is not used.
> >
> > The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
> > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > // <smpl>
> > @@
> > identifier x;
> > type T;
> > @@
> > - T x = platform_get_drvdata(...);
> > ... when != x
> > // </smpl>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/bf5xx_nand.c |    4 ----
> >  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/bf5xx_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/bf5xx_nand.c
> > index b7a2494..b5fbd48 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/bf5xx_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/bf5xx_nand.c
> > @@ -840,15 +840,11 @@ out_err_kzalloc:
> >
> >  static int bf5xx_nand_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, pm_message_t pm)
> >  {
> > -       struct bf5xx_nand_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
> > -
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  static int bf5xx_nand_resume(struct platform_device *dev)
> >  {
> > -       struct bf5xx_nand_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
> > -
> >         return 0;
>
> In this case bf5xx_nand_suspend/resume could be removed?

I don't know.  It looks like it is intentional to have a definition that
returns an indication of success?  The complete set of definitions is:

#ifdef CONFIG_PM

static int bf5xx_nand_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, pm_message_t
pm)
{
        struct bf5xx_nand_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(dev);

	return 0;
}

static int bf5xx_nand_resume(struct platform_device *dev)
{
        struct bf5xx_nand_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(dev);

        return 0;
}

#else
#define bf5xx_nand_suspend NULL
#define bf5xx_nand_resume NULL
#endif

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/