[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWcRoTJ9VgOqZ3ts@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:25:37 +0200
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/45] drm/connector: Check drm_connector_init
pointers arguments
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 15:49:08 +0200
> Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Should we perhaps start to use the (arguably hideous)
> > - void f(struct foo *bar)
> > + void f(struct foo bar[static 1])
> > syntax to tell the compiler we don't accept NULL pointers?
> >
> > Hmm. Apparently that has the same problem as using any
> > other kind of array syntax in the prototype. That is,
> > the compiler demands to know the definition of 'struct foo'
> > even though we're passing in effectively a pointer. Sigh.
>
>
> __attribute__((nonnull)) ?
I guess that would work, though the syntax is horrible when
you need to flag specific arguments.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists