[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e018cf81-39ef-e052-56cc-98ca0eae8a2e@web.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:54:25 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [1/7] cpufreq: ap806: Checking implementation
ofarmada_8k_cpufreq_init()
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/armada-8k-cpufreq.c?id=05d08e2995cbe6efdb993482ee0d38a77040861a#n137
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Adding a null pointer check here is indeed safer.
I wonder then why such a return value check was omitted so far.
> However, the purpose of series of patches is to add missing of_node_put
> to avoid memory leaks.
A few lines might become also more interesting besides these source code places.
> So after that, we will also add a null pointer check later.
Would we like to develop another script for the semantic patch language
to detect similarly questionable implementation details?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists