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.
--
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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
