linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before calling clk API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:35:51 +0800
From:   Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>,
        Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before
 calling clk API

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> >     clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare check the input
> >     clock parameter in the beginning of the function,
>
> These functions call further functions which perform null pointer checks.
>
>
> >                                                       if the parameter
> >     is NULL, clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare will
> >     return immediately.
>
> The interpretation of these function implementations seems to be reasonable.
> Would you like to achieve any improvements for the corresponding software documentation?

Which document do you mean?

>
>
> >     So Don't need to check input clock parameters before calling clk API.
>
> What do you find imperative in this wording?
>
> Another wording alternative:
>    Thus omit extra null pointer checks before four function calls.
>
> Regards,
> Markus