netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/mlx4: remove many unnecessary NULL values

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: <4f2336ed-7fb2-b720-b2f1-d65e4e2e46fc@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:35:06 +0800
From: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/mlx4: remove many unnecessary NULL values



On 2023/8/2 1:55, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:34 AM, Ruan Jinjie wrote:
>> Ther are many pointers assigned first, which need not to be initialized, so
>> remove the NULL assignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
> 
> Thanks for your patch, make sure you're always explaining "why" you're
> making a change in your commit message.

Thank you for your sincere advice! I'll notice the issue in future patches.

> 
> but see below please.
> 
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c | 10 +++++-----
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c  |  4 ++--
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c       | 12 ++++++------
>>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c
>> index 7d45f1d55f79..164a13272faa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c
>> @@ -1467,8 +1467,8 @@ static int add_ip_rule(struct mlx4_en_priv *priv,
>>  		       struct list_head *list_h)
>>  {
>>  	int err;
>> -	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l2 = NULL;
>> -	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l3 = NULL;
>> +	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l2;
>> +	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l3;
> 
> What sequence of commands did you use to identify this set of things to
> change? That would be useful data for the commit message.
> 
> gcc with -Wunused-something?
> cppcheck?

Just code walk-through and some keyword match such as malloc and NULL
assignment.

> 
> I've sent these types of patches before, but they've been rejected as
> churn if they don't fix a clear W=1 or C=2 warning.
> 
> Did you run the above and see these issues?
> 
> 
>>  	struct ethtool_usrip4_spec *l3_mask = &cmd->fs.m_u.usr_ip4_spec;
>>  
>>  	spec_l3 = kzalloc(sizeof(*spec_l3), GFP_KERNEL);
>> @@ -1505,9 +1505,9 @@ static int add_tcp_udp_rule(struct mlx4_en_priv *priv,
>>  			     struct list_head *list_h, int proto)
>>  {
>>  	int err;
>> -	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l2 = NULL;
>> -	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l3 = NULL;
>> -	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l4 = NULL;
>> +	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l2;
>> +	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l3;
>> +	struct mlx4_spec_list *spec_l4;
>>  	struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec *l4_mask = &cmd->fs.m_u.tcp_ip4_spec;
>>  
>>  	spec_l2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*spec_l2), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> I suggest if you want to have these kind of changes committed you spend
> more time to make a detailed commit message and explain what's going on
> for the change as otherwise it's not going to be accepted.

Thank you very much! I'll give more explain in future patches.

> 
> 
>