[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240219170038.GH40273@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:00:38 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Daniil Dulov <d.dulov@...ddin.ru>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: softing: remove redundant NULL check
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:47:43PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I have a general question on the "Fixes:" tag in this patch:
>
> On 16.02.24 18:27, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 07:05:35AM -0800, Daniil Dulov wrote:
> > > In this case dev cannot be NULL, so remove redundant check.
> > >
> > > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 03fd3cf5a179 ("can: add driver for Softing card")
>
> IMHO this is simply an improvement which is done by all patches applied to
> the kernel but it does not really "fix" anything from a functional
> standpoint.
>
> Shouldn't we either invent a new tag or better leave it out to not confuse
> the stable maintainers?
Hi Oliver,
sorry for missing that in my review.
Yes, I agree that this is probably not a fix, for which my
rule of thumb is something that addresses a user-visible problem.
So I agree it should not have a fixes tag.
I would suggest that we can just change the text to something that
has no tag. Something like:
...
Introduced by 03fd3cf5a179 ("can: add driver for Softing card")
Signed-of-by: ...
>
> Best regards,
> Oliver
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniil Dulov <d.dulov@...ddin.ru>
> >
> > Hi Daniil,
> >
> > I am not sure that dev cannot be NULL.
> > But I do see that the code assumes it is not, and would crash if it is.
> > So I think that, functionally, your statement is correct.
> >
> > priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > card = priv->card;
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists