Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7933ce8f-ca1b-6ed8-14b9-59679130dc47@web.de> <CA+Ln22GpcMF5e8wjwoRH0wExyoGfta4n3YuaOBNDE+rfqhSZjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <285fab33-0513-8a6b-f30d-f602c4e5108e@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <285fab33-0513-8a6b-f30d-f602c4e5108e@web.de>
From:   Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:44:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+Ln22Ft47yJx5hO0YNOobJDGtg7t0_DPdeBif3LmMcn8gyykw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: clk: samsung: Checking a kmemdup() call in _samsung_clk_register_pll()
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>,
        Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@umn.edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@umn.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2019=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5(=E6=B0=B4) 19:55 Markus Elfring <Markus=
.Elfring@web.de>:
>
> >> * Is there a need to adjust the error handling here?
> >
> > No, there isn't much that can be done if we fail the allocation at
> > such an early stage.
>
> Can it matter to perform the setting =E2=80=9Cpll->rate_count=E2=80=9D on=
ly according
> to a null pointer check for the variable =E2=80=9Cpll->rate_table=E2=80=
=9D
> because of the function call =E2=80=9Ckmemdup=E2=80=9D?

It would be a good practice indeed, but looking from the code,
pll->rate_table is checked elsewhere, not pll->rate_count.

Best regards,
Tomasz