> Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/12/06, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL
checking
> > introduced by commit f1d3d38af75789f1b82969b83b69cab540609789:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > ...
> > static struct cphy *my3126_phy_create(adapter_t *adapter,
> > int phy_addr, struct mdio_ops *mdio_ops)
> > {
> > struct cphy *cphy = kzalloc(sizeof (*cphy), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > if (cphy)
> > cphy_init(cphy, adapter, phy_addr, &my3126_ops,
mdio_ops);
> >
> > INIT_WORK(&cphy->phy_update, my3216_poll, cphy);
> > cphy->bmsr = 0;
> >
> > return (cphy);
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > It doesn't make sense to first check whether "cphy" is NULL and
> > dereference it unconditionally later.
> >
>
> How about simply changing
> if (cphy)
> cphy_init(cphy, adapter, phy_addr, &my3126_ops,
mdio_ops);
> into
> if (!cphy)
> return NULL;
>
> callers need to be able to handle that ofcourse, but I haven't checked
that
> yet.
[Felix Marti] Yes, returning NULL on allocation failure is the way to
go. The caller does handle it.
>
> --
> Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
> Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
