[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191215182814.GA859066@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 19:28:14 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Vandana BN <bnvandana@...il.com>,
Harsh Jain <harshjain32@...il.com>, kjlu@....edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: kpc2000: replace assertion with recovery code
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 12:12:37PM -0600, Aditya Pakki wrote:
> In kpc_dma_transfer, if either priv or ldev is NULL, crashing the
> process is excessive and is not needed. Instead of asserting, by
> passing the error upstream, the error can be handled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>
> ---
> drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc_dma/fileops.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc_dma/fileops.c b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc_dma/fileops.c
> index cb52bd9a6d2f..1c4633267cc1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc_dma/fileops.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc_dma/fileops.c
> @@ -49,9 +49,11 @@ static int kpc_dma_transfer(struct dev_private_data *priv,
> u64 dma_addr;
> u64 user_ctl;
>
> - BUG_ON(priv == NULL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -EINVAL;
How can prive ever be NULL here? Can you track back to all callers to
verify this? If so, just remove the check.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists