[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0561b89b-42a8-35bf-feaa-e5feb4ec3cd5@nfschina.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:18:42 +0800
From: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: airlied@...hat.com, kraxel@...hat.com, gurchetansingh@...omium.org,
olvaffe@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/virtio: remove some redundant code
On 2023/7/11 19:13, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 05:00:31PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
>> virtio_gpu_get_vbuf always be successful,
>> so remove the error judgment.
>>
> No, just ignore the static checker false positive in this case. The
> intent of the code is clear that if it did have an error it should
> return an error pointer.
Hi, Dan,
Function "virtio_gpu_get_vbuf" call "kmem_cache_zalloc (vgdev->vbufs,
GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL)" to
allocate memory. Adding the " __GFP_NOFAIL”flag make sure it won't fail.
And "virtio_gpu_get_vbuf" never
return an error code, so I think this is not a false positive.
Su Hui
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists