Hi Andy, Thanks for the review.
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:16:05 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de> wrote: > > Before accessing DMI data to record it for later, we should ensure > > that the DMI structures are large enough to contain the data in > > question. > > > - const u8 *d = (u8 *) dm + index; > > + const u8 *d; > > > + d = (u8 *) dm + index; > > I think you may leave this as is and make it compiler's burden to optimize. Is there any benefit except making the patch smaller? > > - const u8 *d = (u8 *) dm + index; > > + const u8 *d; > > > + d = (u8 *) dm + index; > > Ditto. > > > - int i, count = *(u8 *)(dm + 1); > > + int i, count; > > > + count = *(u8 *)(dm + 1); > > Ditto. I would expect a static code analyzer to complain about at least the last one. Dereferencing a pointer before checking its validity is bad. I'm not a big fan of counting of compiler optimizations to make the code right. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
