On 21-02-08 16:26, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
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?
No, but we're only at -rc2. Dumb little things such as this needn't wait an
entire development cyc
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:53AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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 (b
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
>
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,
somethi
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 05:00:43 pm Rene Herman wrote:
> On 19-02-08 23:49, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
> > introduced by commit 5d38998ed15b31f524bde9a193d60150af30d916:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > ...
> > static int pnp
On 19-02-08 23:49, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
introduced by commit 5d38998ed15b31f524bde9a193d60150af30d916:
<-- snip -->
...
static int pnp_bus_resume(struct device *dev)
{
...
if (pnp_dev->protocol && pnp_dev->protocol-
6 matches
Mail list logo
