Re: [PATCH][RESEND] Semi-pointless NULL test in uli526x driver

Jesper Juhl wrote: On 07/08/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jesper Juhl wrote: (resending previously submitted patch from 16/7-2007 22:40) Hi, In drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c::uli526x_interrupt() there's a test of the function argument 'void *dev_id' against NULL. But that test is

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] Semi-pointless NULL test in uli526x driver

On 07/08/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jesper Juhl wrote: > > (resending previously submitted patch from 16/7-2007 22:40) > > > > > > Hi, > > > > In drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c::uli526x_interrupt() there's a test > > of the function argument 'void *dev_id' against NULL. But that > >

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] Semi-pointless NULL test in uli526x driver

Jesper Juhl wrote: (resending previously submitted patch from 16/7-2007 22:40) Hi, In drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c::uli526x_interrupt() there's a test of the function argument 'void *dev_id' against NULL. But that test is pretty pointless, since if ever 'dev_id' is NULL we'll already have cr

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] Semi-pointless NULL test in uli526x driver

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 08:32:12PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > I don't think dev_id can ever actually be NULL, so the whole block > inside "if (!dev) {" could probably just go away. But I guess > there's a good reason someone put that ULI526X_DBUG() in there - and > if 'dev_id' /can/ actually be