[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBf3oSgJP8bLmhG0@google.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:05:21 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, cocci@...ia.fr,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: iforce - Fix exception handling in
iforce_usb_probe()
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:34:52PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/03/20 13:21, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:03:00PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:50:51 +0100
> >>
> >> The label “fail” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> >> the detail in the implementation of the function “iforce_usb_probe”
> >> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained
> >> still a null pointer.
> >>
> >> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
> >>
> >> 2. Reorder jump targets at the end.
> >>
> >> 3. Delete a redundant check.
> >>
> >>
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >
> > I am sorry, but I do not understand what the actual issue is. The fact
> > that come Coccinelle script complains is not enough to change the code.
> >
>
> Right. There is no issue with the code, for usb_free_urb(NULL) is a no-op.
> Proposing as a cleanup, without Fixes: tags, could be possible though.
Yes, that would be acceptable.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists