linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: Fix NULL pointer comparison warning

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, 6 Dec 2016 22:03:44 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Mohamed Wasif <m.wasif@...sung.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        vidushi.koul@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: Fix NULL pointer comparison warning

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Mohamed Wasif <m.wasif@...sung.com> wrote:
> Replace direct comparisons to NULL
> This problem was detected by checkpatch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mohamed Wasif <m.wasif@...sung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6e6c1fb..ca3542e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor, unsigned int *policy,
>
>                 t = find_governor(str_governor);
>
> -               if (t == NULL) {
> +               if (!t) {
>                         int ret;
>
>                         mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor, unsigned int *policy,
>                                 t = find_governor(str_governor);
>                 }
>
> -               if (t != NULL) {
> +               if (t) {
>                         *governor = t;
>                         err = 0;
>                 }
> --

The code is correct as is and this patch doesn't fix anything.

Besides, you are supposed to run checkpatch against *patches* and not
against existing code.

Thanks,
Rafael