Messages in this thread | | | From | Bjorn Helgaas <> | Subject | Re: pnp_bus_resume(): inconsequent NULL checking | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:26:53 -0700 |
| |
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 10:47:21 pm Rene Herman wrote: > On 20-02-08 17:59, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > I agree with you that we can just delete the dev->protocol tests > > completely. So I'd rather see something like this (built but untested): > > > > > > PNP: remove dev->protocol NULL checks > > > > Every PNP device should have a valid protocol pointer. If it doesn't, > > something's wrong and we should oops so we can find and fix the problem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> > > Ack from a functional standpoint: we are oopsing in pnp_start/stop_dev > _anyway_ if the protocol pointer isn't set. > > Will you coach this upstream? A 2.6.25-rc1 change from me made the coverity > checker pick up on it which might be considered enough of an excuse to call > it a regression and submit this as a fix...
I'll push it upstream, but a coverity warning seems like a marginal excuse for putting it in 2.6.25. Is there any real reason it can't wait until 2.6.26?
> > Index: work6/drivers/pnp/driver.c > > =================================================================== > > --- work6.orig/drivers/pnp/driver.c 2008-02-20 09:46:01.000000000 -0700 > > +++ work6/drivers/pnp/driver.c 2008-02-20 09:46:28.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ > > return error; > > } > > > > - if (pnp_dev->protocol && pnp_dev->protocol->suspend) > > + if (pnp_dev->protocol->suspend) > > pnp_dev->protocol->suspend(pnp_dev, state); > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ > > if (!pnp_drv) > > return 0; > > > > - if (pnp_dev->protocol && pnp_dev->protocol->resume) > > + if (pnp_dev->protocol->resume) > > pnp_dev->protocol->resume(pnp_dev); > > > > if (pnp_can_write(pnp_dev)) { > > Rene.
| |