Subject: Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call
 "gpiod_put"
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@gmail.com>
References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402231635510.1985@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402240658210.2090@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402241710370.2074@hadrien>
 <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251014170.2080@hadrien>
 <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251840450.7035@hadrien>
 <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402252117150.2047@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402262129250.2221@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <559D8874.7090407@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1507091431470.10183@pobox.suse.cz>
 <CAN+gG=EWxh3BzOucHwMrxNByy-yEJ8Xc_tW31aiq2rbeSAZ+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <559EDE3D.1030409@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAN+gG=G9xiFUDML6i44mKodW4tiQPgGQ0Ft7oV8RA1JpuuQ1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-input <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <559EE338.4060107@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:10:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN+gG=G9xiFUDML6i44mKodW4tiQPgGQ0Ft7oV8RA1JpuuQ1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1311
Lines: 30

>> The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
>> file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.
>>
>> * i2c_hid_remove() function:
>>   Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?
>>
>> * i2c_hid_probe() function:
>>   Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
>>   will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
>>   label "err" will be reached?
>>
> 
> Again, in both case it is completely normal to have "ihid->desc ==
> NULL" given that this field is only retrieved in case of an ACPI
> device which does not declares an IRQ but a GPIO. Most ACPI devices I
> saw are using a simple IRQ, and the OF instantiations of the driver
> will definitively have ihid->desc null. So I do not want to have a
> warning for most of i2c-hid devices out there (because I will have to
> explain that this is completely normal again and again).

Would it make sense to annotate checks before such function calls
as "unlikely" then?

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/