Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:47:28 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     Yu Sun <u202112062@hust.edu.cn>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Ilpo =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@nvidia.com>,
        hust-os-kernel-patches@googlegroups.com,
        Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/mellanox: mlxreg-lc: Check before variable
 dereferenced
Message-ID: <4109f017-f07c-4755-bc1b-ec4cb30b0760@suswa.mountain>
References: <20231130094409.3963-1-u202112062@hust.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231130094409.3963-1-u202112062@hust.edu.cn>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 05:44:07PM +0800, Yu Sun wrote:
> there is a warning saying variable dereferenced before
> check 'data->notifier' in line 828.
> add "for(data->notifier)" before variable deferenced.
       ^^^
Should have been "if (data->notifier)".

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Sun <u202112062@hust.edu.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>

I didn't really explicitly give a Reviewed-by tag for this patch.
https://groups.google.com/g/hust-os-kernel-patches/c/c5hUaYIDcII/m/h4aFS7PkCQAJ
I also said that I thought it looked correct but that it needed a Fixes:
tag however the Fixes tag I suggested was wrong.

Looking at it now, the correct Fixes tag would be:
Fixes: 1c8ee06b637f ("platform/mellanox: Remove unnecessary code")

That commit says that the NULL check is not required.  So now I'm
confused.  On the one hand, the impulse is to trust the maintainer, but
on the other hand my review suggested that the NULL check might be
required.

regards,
dan carpenter