Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:17:50 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, when requesting pins | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote: > Linus Walleij wrote at Monday, February 20, 2012 2:15 PM: >> > >> > - if (!function) { >> > - dev_err(pctldev->dev, "no function name given\n"); >> > - return -EINVAL; >> > - } >> > - >> >> Why should it be allowed to have a NULL owner? There is a >> debug print involving it above but ... maybe this is over-cautious? > > My reasoning was that this is an internal function, so this isn't a user- > supplied parameter we need to be paranoid about checking, and the places > that call this function internally "obviously" don't pass NULL owner. > Well, I suppose one place relies on the fact we checked elsewhere that > map->dev_name != NULL. > > Still, I can see a defensive programming argument for keeping that check, > although I suspect if we apply that argument we should probably check a > lot more things too throughout the code?
Bah whatever, no big deal.
Patch applied!
Thanks, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |