[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200410121406.GA31761@ravnborg.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:14:06 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: drm/tve200: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in
tve200_probe()
Hi Markus.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:56:25PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The right way to check for errors is to check if the return value is
> > less than 0.
>
> Thanks for your constructive feedback.
>
> I was unsure if I noticed another programming mistake.
>
>
> > Could you please audit all uses of platform_get_irq() in drivers/gpu/
>
> I found 20 source files from the software “Linux next-20200408”
> which seem to contain similar update candidates.
> Would you like to clarify any extensions for improved applications
> of scripts with the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software)
> for corresponding analysis and transformation purposes?
Please just send a series of patches, one for each driver.
Each changelog needs to explain the rationale behind the change.
Look at how this is often done.
As for coccinelle - I cannot help you.
Sam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists