On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:03:00PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:50:51 +0100
>
> The label “fail” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> the detail in the implementation of the function “iforce_usb_probe”
> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained
> still a null pointer.
>
> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
>
> 2. Reorder jump targets at the end.
>
> 3. Delete a redundant check.
>
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
I am sorry, but I do not understand what the actual issue is. The fact
that come Coccinelle script complains is not enough to change the code.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On 2023/03/20 13:21, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:03:00PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:50:51 +0100
>>
>> The label “fail” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
>> the detail in the implementation of the function “iforce_usb_probe”
>> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained
>> still a null pointer.
>>
>> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
>>
>> 2. Reorder jump targets at the end.
>>
>> 3. Delete a redundant check.
>>
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> I am sorry, but I do not understand what the actual issue is. The fact
> that come Coccinelle script complains is not enough to change the code.
>
Right. There is no issue with the code, for usb_free_urb(NULL) is a no-op.
Proposing as a cleanup, without Fixes: tags, could be possible though.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:34:52PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/03/20 13:21, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:03:00PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:50:51 +0100
> >>
> >> The label “fail” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> >> the detail in the implementation of the function “iforce_usb_probe”
> >> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained
> >> still a null pointer.
> >>
> >> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
> >>
> >> 2. Reorder jump targets at the end.
> >>
> >> 3. Delete a redundant check.
> >>
> >>
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >
> > I am sorry, but I do not understand what the actual issue is. The fact
> > that come Coccinelle script complains is not enough to change the code.
> >
>
> Right. There is no issue with the code, for usb_free_urb(NULL) is a no-op.
> Proposing as a cleanup, without Fixes: tags, could be possible though.
Yes, that would be acceptable.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry