[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95340aa60ea9a19a5c216e5863a368f05dbfeebd.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:03:18 -0800
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] e100: Fix passing zero to 'PTR_ERR' warning in
e100_load_ucode_wait
On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 20:48 +0800, YueHaibing wrote:
> Fix a static code checker warning:
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c:1349
> e100_load_ucode_wait() warn: passing zero to 'PTR_ERR'
>
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This looks fine, I am just concerned of the regression testing needed on
hardware that is almost 20 years old now. The availability of the hardware
for testing is also a concern.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c
> index 7c4b554..736115b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e100.c
> @@ -1345,8 +1345,8 @@ static inline int e100_load_ucode_wait(struct nic
> *nic)
>
> fw = e100_request_firmware(nic);
> /* If it's NULL, then no ucode is required */
> - if (!fw || IS_ERR(fw))
> - return PTR_ERR(fw);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fw))
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(fw);
>
> if ((err = e100_exec_cb(nic, (void *)fw, e100_setup_ucode)))
> netif_err(nic, probe, nic->netdev,
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists