On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:41:12PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 18:25 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The Coverity checker noted that we'll anyway Oops later when we ran into
> > this condition - and the error check didn't prevent that.
> >
> > Considering that the error condition shouldn't be possible, and we are
> > not able to handle it easily, this patch simply removes the pointless
> > error check.
>
> This is the one where I said I don't like the fact that you're removing
> the explanatory message that's printed before we crash. if you want to
> shut coverity up and stop sending the patch, I'm happy adding a BUG();
> after the nsp32_msg().
Sorry, I missed your answer when resending since it was in a different
thread.
I'm still not convinced we really need the nsp32_msg() here but you are
the maintainer and it's not a big deal anyway
A BUG() would IMHO be similarly pointless as the nsp32_msg() at this
point and there's no value in changing code only for the sake of the
Coverity checker.
> James
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
