linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <d0fa7aa5-b64b-7d4a-a80d-ec2f6dec5712@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:28:23 +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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the
 probe function

Hi Mark:

On 2021/8/11 20:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
>> 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.
> I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
> causes.

Maybe not, just be redundant. If you think that's ok, just drop this patch.

I'm sorry to trouble you.

Thanks

Tang Bin