[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f0b7ac0-d061-9484-bc5e-bdd9e32aa42b@web.de>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 17:43:01 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: KVM: s390/mm: Clarification for two return value checks in
gmap_shadow()
Hello,
I have tried another small script out for the semantic patch language.
This source code analysis approach points out that the function “gmap_find_shadow”
is called two times by the function “gmap_shadow”.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc3/source/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c#L1628
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
Null pointer checks are performed at these places.
The function “gmap_find_shadow” is documented in the same source file
that the pointer “ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN)” can eventually be returned.
Are the referenced gmap data structures always initialised here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists