linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function

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:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:09:00 +0800
From:   tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     olivier.moysan@...s.st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in
 theprobe function

Hi Mark:

On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
>> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
>> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
>> the device_node in probe function.
> What is the benefit of not doing the check?  It seems like reasonable
> defensive programming.

I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is 
only trigger if

the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device 
Tree. So the device_node

must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I 
think it's redundant.

Thanks

Tang Bin