[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a8748490612070522v2a4f8446l9833758526c3a1ba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:22:51 +0100
From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: "Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...l.org>, jgarzik@...ox.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: drivers/net/chelsio/my3126.c: inconsequent NULL checking
On 07/12/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
> introduced by commit f1d3d38af75789f1b82969b83b69cab540609789:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> ...
> static struct cphy *my3126_phy_create(adapter_t *adapter,
> int phy_addr, struct mdio_ops *mdio_ops)
> {
> struct cphy *cphy = kzalloc(sizeof (*cphy), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> if (cphy)
> cphy_init(cphy, adapter, phy_addr, &my3126_ops, mdio_ops);
>
> INIT_WORK(&cphy->phy_update, my3216_poll, cphy);
> cphy->bmsr = 0;
>
> return (cphy);
> }
> ...
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> It doesn't make sense to first check whether "cphy" is NULL and
> dereference it unconditionally later.
>
How about simply changing
if (cphy)
cphy_init(cphy, adapter, phy_addr, &my3126_ops, mdio_ops);
into
if (!cphy)
return NULL;
callers need to be able to handle that ofcourse, but I haven't checked that yet.
--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists